presentation_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that updates create a new version and preserve history, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it omits details about permissions, reversibility, or response format, leaving room for more transparency.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and scope, followed by a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, the effect on versions, and the non-destructiveness. It lacks explicit return-value information, but for an update operation this 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% with descriptive parameter comments, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by summarizing that html and metadata (tags, title) are replaced, but it does not provide details beyond 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Actualiza'), the target ('presentación existente'), and the scope ('reemplaza HTML y/o metadata' and 'creando una nueva versión'). It also differentiates from siblings by emphasizing it does not delete history, which separates it from rollback and create operations.

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 implies when to use it (for direct HTML/metadata updates) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like presentation_update_from_file or presentation_append. It mentions the versioning behavior but lacks explicit 'use instead of X' guidance, so usage context is only implied.

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