Raw batchUpdate

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

Annotations already carry the destructive/non-read-only profile; the description adds the atomic batch behavior (one invalid request rejects everything), the verbatim wire-format expectation, and wire conventions for lengths/coordinates and enums. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 longer than a typical tool because it maps the raw request union, but every sentence carries load and the core purpose is front-loaded. The long operation list could arguably be compressed with an API link, which keeps it from a 5.

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 raw, open-ended API tool with no output schema, the description provides the key invocation information: request shape, example, units, enums, and atomicity. It does not describe the success response shape, but that is not necessary for selecting or constructing the call and is 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 coverage is 100% for the two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value with a concrete JSON example for requests, explains 'verbatim wire format,' and specifies units ('PT') and UPPER_CASE enums, none of which are in the schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Sends raw Slides API batchUpdate requests.' It scopes the tool to 'anything the typed tools don't cover' and enumerates request types, clearly distinguishing it from the typed sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly positions the tool as the fallback for anything the typed tools don't cover, so an agent knows to prefer a typed sibling when one exists. The listed operations and openWorldHint reinforce when this raw request path is appropriate.

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