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

Annotations already declare the non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the burden is light. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond them: the new slide is appended ('at the end') and the image-slide channel is closed. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or lifetime of the change.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and placement constraint, followed by the parameter summary and the exclusion. No filler or repetition.

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 small mutation tool with an output schema and annotations, this covers what is needed to call it correctly: action, target, placement, params, and the alternative channel for image slides. Only a tighter definition of the id parameter leaves a minor gap.

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%, so the description should carry more weight than it does. It enumerates both params ('id (uuid) + body { caption }'), but 'id (uuid)' merely restates the schema's format field and never clarifies which entity the id identifies (presumably the template), nor adds any caption constraints.

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 (add), resource (text slide), and target (template), plus positional scope ('at the end'). It immediately distinguishes itself from the many add_* siblings by naming the exact artifact type and constraining it to TEXT slides.

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 an explicit negative case: image slides cannot be added here and must come from the app/panel, which routes the agent away from a wrong invocation. It does not, however, point to any sibling tool (e.g. update_slide_caption or reorder_slides) for the adjacent operations.

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