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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact—"Measures every slide again"—signaling that the change triggers a global re-layout across all slides, which is valuable context. It still omits irreversibility, what happens when the old text is absent, and whether the change is transactional.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. However, "Measures every slide again" is cryptic phrasing that may be misread as a layout action rather than a side effect, so brevity comes at some cost to clarity.

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?

Five parameters with three required, a destructive mutation, and no output schema—an agent needs to know failure behavior, whether the stylesheet must be read first, and how `all` interacts with the exact-match rule. The definition covers the core action and the slide re-measure side effect but leaves those operational questions unanswered.

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 parameter documentation is already handled. The description's emphasis on "EXACT text" reinforces that the `old` parameter requires an exact match rather than a pattern, but adds nothing about `all`, `fonts`, or `document_id` beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (the shared stylesheet) and the operation (replacing exact text), but the phrasing "Changes an EXACT text ... into another" is awkward and does not distinguish this from the sibling deck_write_styles, which presumably also alters the stylesheet. An agent can guess it is a find-and-replace on style text, but the boundary with the writer tool is left implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over deck_write_styles or deck_read_styles, no prerequisite (e.g. reading the stylesheet first), and no note about when replacement is preferable to a full rewrite. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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