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

Adds real context beyond annotations: it discloses that every slide is re-laid-out and text re-fits (matching destructiveHint=true), notes the operation is Free, and requires expectedVersion. The retry guidance could be read as downplaying the non-idempotent risk, but no direct contradiction exists.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by effect, precondition, and failure handling — no filler.

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?

Covers the core mutation, its destructive side effect, and the versioning contract, which is sufficient given no output schema. Minor gap: the optional locale/projectId/accountHandle parameters and their effect on the operation are never mentioned.

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 33% across 6 params; the description usefully constrains aspect and explains expectedVersion's conflict role, but deckId, locale, accountHandle and projectId semantics are left to the schema, so compensation is partial.

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 ('Set the deck's shape') and enumerates the exact allowed values (1:1, 4:5, 9:16), which cleanly separates it from siblings like antix_apply_deck_layout or antix_set_slide_layout.

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 explicit user-phrase triggers ('make it square', 'make it 4:5', 'make it a story') and a concrete recovery procedure on DECK_CONFLICT (re-read deck, repeat same change), so the agent knows both when to call it and what to do if it fails.

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