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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the Pro-account requirement, atomic all-or-none application, 50-change limit, style merging, image aspect-ratio behavior, behind/order semantics, return value, and error codes including conflict recovery.

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 dense but front-loaded: it starts with the action and fields, then moves through requirements, constraints, return value, and errors. Every clause contributes useful information for invoking the tool correctly.

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 complex mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is complete enough: it explains atomicity, Pro requirements, version conflicts, return value, and error handling. An agent has what it needs to call and recover from failures.

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 already 75%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond it, especially "Send only the fields to change; the style is merged," the image w-alone behavior, and the behind/order interaction.

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 and resource ("Change objects already on a slide") and enumerates the changeable attributes. The phrase "already on a slide" clearly distinguishes it from add_objects and remove_objects without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear operational context: requires a Pro account, use ids from get_template, send only fields to change, and retry with get_template on conflict. It does not explicitly name add_objects or remove_objects as the alternatives for adding or removing objects, so it falls just short of full when/when-not routing.

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