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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the side effect (previews are re-rendered) and the cost model (Free), which matters for deciding to iterate here repeatedly. It does not disclose whether edits are reversible, whether removal renumbers remaining slides, or whether re-render is synchronous — gaps that matter for a destructive=false but write-shaped 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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler; the editable targets come first and the side effect/cost trail as a short addendum. The parenthetical lists and shorthand like 'header_*' are dense but each clause carries information, so nothing is wasted.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no documentation of what is returned after a re-render, the description covers the main edit modes but leaves notable holes: how header-only edits interact with include, whether slide and header fields can be mixed in one call, and what happens to slide numbering after remove. It is adequate to attempt a call, not complete enough to predict the result.

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 only 57% across 14 parameters, so the description has to carry weight. It does map several undocumented params to meaning (opener = 'opening shot', move_to = 'position', remove = 'remove it', device = 'device size', header_* = App Store header), but it never explains the layout enum values, the include modes, or whether the 'or'-separated edit modes are mutually exclusive or combinable in one call.

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 (change) and enumerates the editable surfaces: one slide and its parts, the opening shot, device size, or the App Store header (header_*). That makes it operationally distinct from read-only siblings like get_set and from design_set/export_set. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 enumeration of what can be edited, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer design_set or upload_screenshots, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., a set must exist and be unlocked before editing). The agent must infer that 'Free' and 'Re-renders previews' make this a cheap iterative step.

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