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

Annotations already signal that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context beyond these annotations: it re-rasters only that slide and never rewrites HTML. This is specific behavioral disclosure about side effects that 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?

Three terse sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by behavioral constraints. Every clause earns its place and the description is highly scannable.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, an 8-parameter tool with a nested slots object and low schema coverage needs far more input context. The description does not explain what 'lines' represents, how slot keys are used, or the roles of mediaAssetId and workspaceId, leaving an agent to guess at 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?

Schema description coverage is only 13% (only projectId has a description). The description names 'slots' and 'template_id' as the patchable entities, but leaves lines, mediaAssetId, workspaceId, and slideIndex unexplained. With 8 parameters and a nested object, this partial compensation is insufficient for an agent to understand what to pass.

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 states exactly what the tool does: patch named slots or template_id on one slide. It names the specific verb, resource, and scope, and adds behavioral differentiators (re-rasters that slide only, never rewrites HTML) that distinguish it from broader carousel tools like carousels_patch_document.

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 implies usage for single-slide targeted updates ('on one slide', 're-rasters that slide only') but never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention carousels_patch_document or other sibling tools, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name and scope.

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