paydirt_connect_slack

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: authorization creates a new #paydirt-cancellation-feedback channel (numbered when taken) and auto-assigns installed forms when workspace policy allows. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the post-authorization side effects. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint because the tool itself only returns the URL; the side effects occur during external authorization.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence gives the trigger and return value; the second sentence explains the important post-auth behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and high schema coverage, the description covers everything essential: trigger, return value, and downstream side effects. It is complete for the tool's complexity and works well with the sibling context.

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 input schema has one parameter, app_id, with a description ('The app ID'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states exactly when to use the tool ('when the user asks to connect Slack or setup requires Slack delivery') and what it returns (the Slack OAuth URL). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like paydirt_slack_status and paydirt_list_slack_channels, which cover status and channel listing rather than the connection flow.

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?

The description explicitly names trigger conditions for using this tool. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or alternative tools, but the given context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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