create_settings_notifications_slack

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

Annotations already communicate that the tool is mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the body being dynamic and requiring a preliminary GET/schema lookup, but it does not disclose side effects or other operation details beyond that. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage but not especially rich.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the endpoint, then the argument guidance. Every line earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 settings-update tool with one opaque body parameter, the description provides the essential discovery step via GET/schema. Annotations and the output schema cover idempotency and return behavior. It is slightly light on broader context like auth or permissions, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 schema only defines 'body' as an open object with additionalProperties true and 0% field coverage. The description compensates by explaining that body is the request payload and instructing the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover expected fields. This is helpful procedural guidance, though it does not enumerate any fields.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('Slack notification settings'), which distinguishes it from list/test siblings such as list_settings_notifications_slack and create_settings_notifications_slack_test. Even though the tool name uses 'create', the description clarifies the actual operation is an update, so an agent knows what the tool does.

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?

It provides a clear use case: update Slack notification settings. It also gives a concrete precondition by telling the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling test/list tools, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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