slack_update_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context beyond that: writes require approval, 'effect' is verified by Spring, and approval_ref resumes a write. However, it does not disclose what the update actually does to the message or its error behavior, so the added value is moderate but not rich.

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 well structured: identity line, one-governance constraint line, then a tidy seven-line bulleted args list. There is no redundancy or fluff, and the tool identity is front-loaded. Each line earns its place, even if several glosses are thin.

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 governance side is well covered—routing authority, effect verification, approval resumption—and the output schema covers the return value. But the actual Slack operation semantics are missing: an agent cannot construct a valid `arguments` JSON (needing channel, ts, text per Slack API), has no prerequisites, and gets no guidance on choosing this over message-post/delete siblings. The definition is inadequate for a first correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does provide one-line glosses for all seven parameters, clarifying governance semantics like the verified effect and approval-ref-on-resume. However, the most important parameter, 'arguments', is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is essentially the schema restated and gives an agent no clue what the Slack update_message payload must contain.

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 opens with 'Slack connector operation `update_message`', which restates the tool name and conveys only the high-level idea that this updates a Slack message. There is no elaboration of what an update entails (e.g., changing text, attachments, thread membership) and no distinction from sibling tools like slack_post_message or slack_delete_message, so the purpose is technically stated but vague.

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 only contextual statement, 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority', is governance routing information, not usage guidance. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the message must already exist and its ts must be known), and no exclusions. An agent gets no help selecting this tool correctly.

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