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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that this is a mutating, idempotent operation. However, the description adds little behavioral context beyond 'hosted' and 'privacy-filtered', and it does not explain side effects, versioning behavior, or what happens to the build when updated. With no contradiction, the description fails to meaningfully extend the annotation coverage.

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 sentence with no filler or repetition, and the action word 'Update' is placed first. Its conciseness is good, though the awkward wording and lack of context reduce overall usefulness elsewhere.

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?

This is an 8-parameter tool with a nested object, no output schema, and a large set of closely related sibling tools. The description does not explain the return value, the workflow stage, the role of expectedVersion/idempotencyKey, or when this is invoked. It is far too sparse for an agent to call correctly with confidence.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It references 'project metadata' generically, but all eight parameters—including required fields like idempotencyKey, expectedVersion, projectId, and requestId—are left undocumented. The nested 'details' object is also completely unexplained, so an agent has no semantic guidance beyond raw schema patterns.

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 action ('Update') and a target ('hosted start presentation build'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'start presentation build' is never defined and the phrasing is grammatically awkward, leaving it unclear whether this starts a build or updates an existing one. It also does not distinguish itself from the many related presentation tools like create_presentation_request or publish_presentation_request.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'using privacy-filtered project metadata' hints at the intended data source, but it does not say when this is preferred over create, publish, fail, or retry presentation request tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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