slack_workflows_step_failed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company), but does not describe the effect on the workflow step, whether it is destructive, or what the output is. Significant gaps.

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 short but includes redundant details like the full platform tool name and path. It could be more concise by front-loading the purpose. Every sentence earns its place but could be improved.

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?

Given there is an output schema and only one parameter, the description should explain the tool's purpose and when to use it. It fails to provide a semantic explanation, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning: it says 'arguments' is a JSON string for the connector operation. This repeats the parameter name slightly but does not specify expected keys or format. Adequately compensates the lack of schema descriptions only partially.

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 does not state the tool's action. It only gives the platform tool name and routing path, without explaining that it marks a workflow step as failed. This is vague and does not distinguish it from sibling like slack_workflows_step_completed.

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?

No guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., slack_workflows_step_completed). The description lacks context for appropriate use.

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