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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: empty string clears notes, the change is reversible ('one call undoes it'), it notifies no one ('reaches no one'), and it needs a Cotlet API key with app access. These are genuine disclosures not covered by the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then auth requirements, which is a sound order. There is mild redundancy between 'Write or replace the speaker notes of a slide' and 'Replaces the speaker notes of one slide', but overall it is tight and earns its sentences.

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 mutation tool with annotations, full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing pieces: reversibility, empty-string semantics, notification behavior, and auth needs. Nothing critical for correct invocation is absent.

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 all three parameters (notes, slide_number, presentation_id) are already documented, including the empty-string clearing behavior. The description adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write or replace the speaker notes of a slide') and clarifies scope ('one slide'). This distinguishes it from siblings like beautiful-ai_update_slide_text (which edits slide body text) without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose, but the description never names an alternative or states when to prefer this over update_slide_text or when not to use it. The 'one call undoes it, so it runs without asking' line is about approval behavior, not tool selection guidance.

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