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

Annotations already declare it is a write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: manually-set names are overwritten, slides without text are left alone, and the new name persists and re-follows later title changes. Disclosing the overwrite of hand-set names is valuable context beyond the safety hints, though it stops short of stating auth specifics or exact return shape.

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 behavior is front-loaded, but the prose is convoluted, especially 'the text block with the biggest letters (the highest one of those)', which forces the agent to parse a nested clarification. Every sentence carries information, but the structure is denser and more awkward than needed.

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 single-parameter write tool with an output schema present, the description gives a thorough account of the algorithm, its persistence behavior, and its edge cases (hand-named slides, textless slides). The main remaining gap is the absence of explicit usage/alternative guidance, which is minor given the detailed behavior.

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?

The single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including its /movie/<slug>/ format. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameters 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?

The description names a specific verb (name) and resource (every slide of a presentation) and defines the mechanism precisely: the title is 'the text block with the biggest letters'. It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like update_slide or edit_slides, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those.

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 only implied via the prerequisite 'a presentation you may edit', which conveys a permission requirement but not an explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule. No alternative (e.g. update_slide) is named or routed to, so the agent must infer placement from the sibling list.

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