claim_pending_slack_install

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is a legacy fallback, the claimToken is valid for 7 days, and alternative behavior without the token. It does not detail success/failure responses or side effects, but the given information is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 front-loaded with 'LEGACY FALLBACK' to set immediate context. It efficiently explains the new flow before describing the tool's purpose, avoiding confusion. While slightly verbose, every sentence provides unique value, earning a score of 4 for structure and conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, legacy fallback scenario) and lack of output schema, the description covers the key aspects: when it applies, parameter details, and behavior edge cases. It lacks explicit return value description, but the mention of 'attach the webhook' and 'returns new flow instructions' provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's effect.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context for claimToken (one-time, 7-day validity) and projectId (owner/editor requirement), but these details are marginal. Other parameters are adequately described in the schema, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 this as a legacy fallback tool for linking Slack installs to a Pincushion license when automatic matching fails. It specifies the action (attach webhook via claimToken and projectId) and distinguishes it from the modern auto-link flow, providing high purpose clarity.

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 states when to use this tool (only when the installer's Slack email did not match a Pincushion license at install time) and when not to use (since May 2026, auto-link is preferred). It also explains the behavior when calling without a claimToken (returns new flow instructions), offering clear usage guidance.

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