presentation_update_from_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries a significant burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the server reads the file directly from disk ('El server lo lee directo del disco') and that the model never reproduces the content, thus avoiding truncation or corruption risks. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether the update fully replaces existing HTML, tags, or title, or behavior on missing files, though some of this is hinted in the schema.

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 main description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and rationale, making it efficient. It could be considered slightly sparse on its own, but it pairs well with the comprehensive schema descriptions, keeping it from being overly verbose.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description gives strong context about the file-based input and the reason behind it. It lacks explicit mention of return values or error conditions, but the presence of sibling tools and the detailed schema help complete the picture. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the main description is not required to compensate. The main description adds context about the file-reading mechanism but does not refine parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides. The path parameter description in the schema is thorough, including the filesystem assumption and the preference over partial/append.

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 explicitly states 'Actualiza una presentación existente leyendo el HTML nuevo directo de un archivo local', clearly identifying an update action on a presentation with a specific file-based method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like presentation_create_from_file and presentation_update, which handle create and direct content updates respectively.

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 explicit usage context: it notes the same rationale as presentation_create_from_file (avoid reproducing large/binary content), and the path parameter states 'Preferí esto sobre partial/append para cualquier HTML que ya exista como archivo,' directly telling the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives like partial update or append. It also implies the alternative of updating with direct content via presentation_update.

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