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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the multipart detail, which is a behavioral requirement, but it does not elaborate on side effects or success/failure beyond what annotations imply. Therefore, it provides minimal additional transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. It uses a compact structure with a separate guidance clause, avoiding unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, the required context, and the multipart requirement. Given the small parameter set and full schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it lacks explicit error or success scenarios.

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?

Since schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, the baseline is 3. The description's summary of fields (position, focal_point, image_file) is redundant but reinforces the intended usage. It does not add new semantic details beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool updates a slide and enumerates the updatable fields (position, focal_point, image_file). This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like delete or upload.

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 guidance section specifies the multipart requirement and the required context (product_id, slide_id), which helps the agent understand the request format and necessary identifiers. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling update or upload tools, so it loses some points.

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