paydirt_connect_slack

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns an OAuth URL and mentions the browser flow, giving extra behavioral context. It does not contradict the annotations and adds a small but useful detail about preserving channel choices and only sending completed Q&A.

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?

The description is about three sentences and remains focused. It starts with the core purpose, then explains the return value, and finally adds operational caveats. No unnecessary filler, though the last sentence about preserving choices and verifying assignments feels slightly tangential but still relevant to usage.

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?

The description covers purpose, when to use, and a general return type (OAuth URL). However, it lacks details about the output structure (e.g., the exact URL format or how the agent should handle it) and does not fully clarify what 'repair Slack delivery' entails. It also doesn't explain the app_id parameter's origin or significance, leaving some gaps for an agent encountering this tool for the first time.

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?

The single parameter app_id is described in the schema as 'The app ID', which is adequate. The description does not add extra semantic information about app_id beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline. Since schema coverage is 100% (one parameter fully described), the description need not elaborate further, but it also doesn't offer any additional insight.

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?

The description clearly states the main purpose: to connect Slack or repair Slack delivery after onboarding. The verb 'connect' is specific, and the resource (Slack) is unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like paydirt_slack_status (status) and paydirt_list_slack_channels (channel listing) by focusing on the OAuth connection action.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the user asks to connect Slack or repair Slack delivery after onboarding'). It also provides some operational guidance (preserve channel selections, verify form assignments, only send completed Q&A). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like paydirt_slack_status for checking existing connections or paydirt_list_slack_channels for listing channels, leaving some room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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