studio_revise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It correctly notes that the original artifact is not modified and that a new artifact is created, and advises polling for completion. However, it omits important information about the 'confirm' parameter (which requires user approval) and does not discuss any side effects or prerequisites beyond the artifact type.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the core action. It wastes no words and is easy to parse. A slight improvement could combine the 'Only slide decks support revision' sentence with the first, but overall it is well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, output schema present), the description adequately covers the main purpose and post-call actions. However, it does not mention the 'confirm' step or provide any error scenarios, leaving some usage context to be inferred from the schema alone.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter information beyond what is already in the schema; the schema itself provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, including the 'slide_instructions' format and the 'confirm' flag's requirement for user approval.

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 clearly states the action ('Revise individual slides'), the resource ('existing slide deck'), and a key behavioral nuance ('Creates a NEW artifact'). It also specifies the only supported artifact type ('Only slide decks support revision'), which distinguishes it from other 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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool ('Only slide decks support revision') and what to do after calling ('Poll studio_status to check when the new deck is ready'). However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or situations where this tool should not be used.

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