passgage_update_slack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing slack' only states the action, with no information about partial vs full updates, return values, required permissions, or side effects. This is essentially a tautology of the tool name and adds no meaningful behavioral insight.

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 extremely short, with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits critical context about the resource and operation, making the brevity a deficiency rather than a strength.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide context about the operation's behavior and scope. It fails to explain what a 'slack' is, what fields the 'data' object should contain, or what the result of the update is. This is incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100% coverage for both parameters: 'id' and 'data' are each described. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but because the schema already documents the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The open-ended 'data' object is not clarified, but the schema notes it as 'The data for updating the slack'.

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 'Update an existing slack' uses a specific verb (update) and resource (slack), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_slack, get_slack, and delete_slack. However, the term 'slack' is ambiguous without further context, and the description could be clearer about what a 'slack' represents in this system.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It is left to the agent to infer from the tool name and siblings that this is the update operation for the 'slack' resource.

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