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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the side effect ('save them on the agent'), the language source, and the prerequisite, which is meaningful. It does not say whether existing phrases are overwritten, whether the call consumes generation credits, or whether the phrases are returned in the response.

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 compact sentences: the core action and its output location come first, the prerequisite second. No filler or repetition, and every clause adds information.

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 one-parameter generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, target agent, language behavior, persistence, and the required prior step. The main remaining gap is whether the generated phrases are returned or only persisted, plus overwrite semantics.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as the agent UUID from list_agents. The description only implicitly refers to the agent, adding nothing beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('generate the phrases the Slide Presenter uses to move between slides') and clarifies the result is saved on the agent. It is clearly distinct from generate_slide_script or set_presentation_slides, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: slides must already be saved via set_presentation_slides, which routes the agent to the right prior step. It stops short of stating when this tool should be preferred over related generation tools or what to do if slides change later.

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