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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds concrete context: the previous script is overwritten and live voice-following switches to the new one. It also discloses an auth/tier requirement (Presenter Pro with a stated exception), which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the overwrite/voice-following behavior following. Efficient, though the Presenter Pro caveat is slightly crammed into the closing clause.

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 two-parameter mutating setter with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: full overwrite, per-slide ordering, downstream effect on voice-following, and the licensing requirement. The only gap is clarification of the undocumented 'slug' parameter.

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 50% — only 'script' is documented in the schema, while 'slug' is not. The description reinforces the array semantics ('one string per slide, in order') but adds nothing about what the 'slug' identifier refers to or accepts, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 ('Replaces') and resource ('the deck's entire speaker script'), and clarifies scope as a full per-slide array in order. An agent can distinguish this from get_script and aitho_attach_script by the 'entire script' scope.

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 establishes scope (entire script vs presumably attaching) and gives a real prerequisite ('Requires Presenter Pro, except on the one talk a free account created this way'), but never explicitly names an alternative tool or the condition that selects one over the other. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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