Set speaker notes

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it reveals that the notes object id is resolved internally, that the rewrite is atomic, that an empty string clears notes, and that notes appear in presenter view and txt exports. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=true 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then packs essential clarifications (empty string behavior, internal resolution, object id distinction, paragraph syntax, and export visibility) into a tight, readable structure.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the special object-id semantics, clearing behavior, idempotent atomic rewrite, and downstream visibility/export implications. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter documentation, including that slide_object_id is 'not the notes page id' and that text supports \n. The description reinforces these points but adds limited new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Replaces a slide's speaker notes with the given text.' It also clarifies the exact scope (speaker notes, not slide content) and differentiates from siblings like get_speaker_notes and set_text by emphasizing the notes-specific target and internal object resolution.

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?

The description gives clear context for use: pass the slide object id, not the notes shape id, and use \n for paragraphs. It also clarifies behavior for empty strings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus other text-editing or notes-reading siblings.

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