Configurar Slack

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: annotations only say this is a non-destructive, idempotent write. The description adds the side effect (notifications routed to Slack DM), the security constraint (token rejected here), and the downstream flow (hidden input, Slack validation, test message), which prevents a harmful misinvocation.

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?

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: what is stored, what is forbidden, and the exact recovery procedure. The most important constraint (no token in chat) is stated plainly and the operational instruction is quoted verbatim for easy relay.

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?

For a single-parameter configuration tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly complete — what it writes, why, and the alternative token path. The only gap is the U-vs-W identifier mismatch and no indication of what a successful call returns or whether an existing ID is overwritten.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it does explain that user_id is a Slack member ID. However, it says the ID "starts with U" while the schema pattern `^[UW][A-Z0-9]{6,}$` also permits W-prefixed (Enterprise Grid) IDs — a small mismatch that could cause the agent to reject a valid W ID.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — "Save the user's Slack member ID" — and explains the effect (notifications go to their Slack DM). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like aspa_update_settings or aspa_send_message without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (persist the member ID so DMs are delivered) and explicit when-not/what-to-do-instead (the bot token is NOT accepted here; direct the user to `cd "/app" && npm run slack`). It also states a hard interaction rule — never ask for the token in chat — which is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs.

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