seerr_create_settings_notifications_slack_test

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description redundantly states 'this modifies your Seerr instance' but doesn't disclose what exactly gets modified, whether it sends a test notification, or if it's safe to run. This is minimal additional context beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a warning. However, it lacks any structured elements like examples or parameter breakdowns, preventing a perfect score.

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 a generic body parameter, no output schema information, and a minimal description, the tool is not adequately specified for an agent to use correctly. It misses the expected payload structure and the precise behavior of the test action.

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 'body' with no description and additionalProperties true. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it gives zero guidance on what fields the body should contain. The tool cannot be correctly invoked based on the description alone.

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 identifies the tool as a test for Slack settings and emphasizes that it performs a write operation modifying the Seerr instance. It distinguishes from the sibling seerr_create_settings_notifications_slack by the 'test' prefix and explicit 'WRITE' warning. However, it doesn't specify what the test entails (e.g., sending a test message), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this test tool versus the actual settings creation tool (seerr_create_settings_notifications_slack). It doesn't mention prerequisites such as having Slack configured or that this should be used after updating settings. The usage is only implied by the name.

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