ops_access_request

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Successfully discloses the pending-approval state ('must be approved before it becomes active'), but omits temporal aspects (temporary access implied by duration_minutes parameter), expiration behavior, and approval routing logic.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence of 12 words with zero redundancy. Critical information (create, scoped, Slack access, approval requirement) is front-loaded and dense. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for basic workflow understanding given the complexity (6 parameters, approval flow), but gaps remain: no output schema explanation, no clarification that access is temporary (despite duration_minutes parameter), and no detail on scoping dimensions despite 0% schema coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage across 6 parameters. Description mentions 'scoped' which vaguely alludes to channels/methods/tools parameters, but provides no semantics for actions (despite enum complexity), duration_minutes limits, or reason requirements. Insufficient compensation for schema deficiencies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Excellent specificity with 'Create a scoped Slack access elevation request' — clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope. The phrase 'must be approved before it becomes active' effectively distinguishes this from sibling ops_access_approve (which performs approvals) and ops_access_revoke.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies this is the first step in an approval workflow, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus requesting permanent access or emergency break-glass procedures. No mention of who can approve or prerequisites for creating requests.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.