slack_views_publish

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. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing the governance routing requirement, that the declared effect is verified by Spring, that idempotency_key provides stable identity, and that writes require an approved approval_ref when resuming. These details meaningfully inform the agent about write approval and authority behavior. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 scannable: an opening identity line, a governance warning, then short definitions for each argument. There is little wasted prose; the only redundancy is restating the platform tool name in the first sentence. The structure makes the information easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool has seven parameters, zero required parameters, zero schema descriptions, and a non-trivial Slack API payload. The description covers platform plumbing and governance but omits the domain behavior, how to construct the 'arguments' JSON, and how this operation relates to the sibling Slack view tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the core usage gap remains large.

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 Args list gives one-line definitions for the seven wrapper parameters, which is more than the bare schema titles provide. However, the actual operation payload is the 'arguments' parameter, and the description only calls it a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without specifying the Slack views.publish fields an agent needs to send. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the most important parameter, so correct invocation is not achievable from this text.

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 identifies the underlying platform operation by name ('Slack connector operation views_publish') but never states what the operation does—that it publishes a Slack view. It also does not distinguish it from sibling tools like slack_views_open, slack_views_push, or slack_views_update. It is more than a pure tautology because it adds governance context, but the core behavior is left entirely to inference from the name.

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 guidance is that the operation 'routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority,' which is a precondition rather than a usage rule. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus the other Slack view tools, no exclusions, and no alternative names. An agent cannot determine the right selection context from the description alone.

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