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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete placement target ('<div data-foto>'), which is real behavioral context, but it does not say what happens if the slide lacks that div, if it already holds an image, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the source constraint and target container are both up front. The inline parenthetical and raw markup token make it terse to the point of being slightly cryptic for a reader unfamiliar with the deck markup.

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 three-parameter, fully documented mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core mechanic. It leaves out failure modes and post-conditions (missing placeholder, existing image, multiple placeholders), which an agent would need to call this correctly without trial and error.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — 'exactly as list_images shows it' merely restates the 'image' parameter's schema text.

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 a specific verb and resource ('puts ... images ... on a slide') and scopes the source to 'one of the deck's own images', which separates it from deck_generate_image and deck_find_image. The reference to 'list_images' is slightly off from the sibling name 'deck_list_images', but the intent remains readable.

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 implies a prerequisite (get the name via list_images) and implicitly excludes generated images, giving usable context. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus deck_generate_image or deck_find_image, and gives no preconditions for the target slide.

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