preview_collaboration_notification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is a preview, implying non-destructive behavior, but does not detail the output, auth needs, or side effects. It adds value beyond the schema by explaining the preparatory context, but could be more explicit.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It includes the essential information without any waste, earning its place efficiently.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficient. It explains the use case and timing. It does not cover return format, but that is less critical for a preview tool. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to understand.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with enums and descriptions. The tool description does not add new meaning to the parameters, just restates them indirectly (Slack/Teams, events). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose: to preview the notification shape and routing for Slack/Teams before connecting a webhook. It uses a specific verb 'preview' and identifies the resource (notification shape/routing), distinguishing it from sibling tools like configure or list integrations.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'before connecting a real webhook.' It implies a preparatory step, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. This is good but leaves some room for interpretation.

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