Keynote: slideshow

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/idempotent flags, and the description reinforces non-mutation but also adds genuinely new context: the macOS + Keynote runtime requirement. The 'doesn't change the file' claim is repeated twice, which is redundant rather than additive, but the platform prerequisite is valuable beyond structured data.

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-loaded with the action modes, which is good, but the sentence 'Doesn't change the file' appears twice, wasting a slot in a very short description. Without that duplication it would be tight, but the redundancy is a clear structural flaw.

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 not be described. The description covers action semantics, the platform prerequisite, and an alternative tool for a related task, making it largely sufficient. Pagination/state-persistence across sequential next/previous calls is unaddressed but minor for this tool.

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%, so path, action, and from_slide are already documented in the schema. The description's notes ('needs path', 'from_slide 1-based') essentially restate what the schema properties already say, adding no new syntax or format detail beyond the baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb (Present) and enumerates the exact action modes (start | stop | next | previous), so an agent knows precisely what the tool does. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling iwork_export by use case ('To share it instead use iwork_export').

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?

States the intended context ('Use to present the deck live') and names an alternative tool for a neighboring need (sharing via iwork_export). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions, e.g. what happens if Keynote isn't installed beyond 'Needs macOS + Keynote'.

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