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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds the meaningful 'null = clear' behavior, which explains how the destructive path is triggered, but it omits permission requirements and what happens to other slide fields alongside the caption.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one clause, then enumerates parameters compactly with zero filler. The 'Params:' telegraphic style is efficient, though slightly dense for skimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the mutation profile. What is missing is context an agent needs before calling: auth/permission requirements on the template, and whether the update is partial or replaces the whole caption set.

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 must supply the meaning of all three parameters, and it does: id as template uuid, slideId as uuid, and body.caption with null meaning clear. Only the schema's maxLength(2000) constraint is left undocumented in prose, which is a minor gap.

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 ('Update a slide's caption/text'), which is unambiguous about what is being changed. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like reorder_slides or update_template, but the caption-targeting is distinctive enough that an agent can route correctly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. template ownership), and no mention of alternatives such as delete_slide when a caption is no longer wanted. The only conditional behavior given is the 'null = clear' semantics, which is parameter-level rather than usage guidance.

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