Update a slide presentation (slides, powerpoint, deck, keynote): title, slide data, theme, or aspect ratio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Presentation ID | |
| data | No | Full replacement array of slide objects | |
| theme | No | New theme | |
| title | No | New title | |
| aspectRatio | No | New aspect ratio |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' without mentioning that the data field performs a full replacement of slide objects, nor does it disclose any destructive aspects, permissions, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief to be fully complete. It doesn't explain the full-replacement semantics or any side effects, though the schema compensates for parameter details. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description lists the same fields without adding extra meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 presentation and lists the specific attributes: title, slide data, theme, or aspect ratio. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from siblings like create_slide_presentation and update_document.
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 description implies usage for updating an existing presentation but doesn't explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives like create_slide_presentation or append_slides. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, so it meets the 'implied usage' criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: document, sheet, tab, or presentation. Even similar operations like append_rows, append_slides, and append_to_document are clearly differentiated by their intended target.
The naming follows a predictable verb_noun pattern with create_, get_, list_, update_, delete_, and append_. Minor deviations like append_to_document (uses 'to') and the use of 'slide_presentation' vs 'slides' keep it from being perfectly uniform.
At 23 tools, the count is slightly above the ideal range, but each tool serves a clear purpose across three resource types (documents, sheets, slides). The volume is justified by supporting tab-level operations and append functionality.
The server provides full CRUD plus listing for each resource type, along with tab management and append operations. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of a direct 'set cell value' operation and no slide reorder or delete individual slide, but core workflows are well covered.