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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior by stressing exact-match copying, but it does not mention what happens with non-unique matches, the effect of the 'all' option, or whether edits can be undone.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Its only weakness is slightly awkward phrasing ('an EXACT text') and the absence of a compact parameter overview.

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 seven-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core exact-replacement idea but leaves key behavioral details to the schema and annotations. It is adequate because those structured fields are rich, but an agent must still infer selection guidance versus deck_write_slide and uniqueness behavior.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter. The description reinforces the meaning of 'old' with the exact-copy instruction, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for 'all', 'title', or 'derived'.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Changes an EXACT text of a slide into another.' The 'like a code edit' analogy makes the exact-replacement mechanism clear, distinguishing it in spirit from whole-slide writing, though it does not name sibling tools explicitly.

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 phrase 'like a code edit' and the instruction to 'Copy old exactly' imply that this tool is for precise, literal text replacement. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of deck_write_slide, nor does it state when not to use it.

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