set_presentation_theme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set presentation theme' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if it affects all slides or just the current one, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's action, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. Every word earns its place, even if the overall content is insufficient.

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 of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'theme' is, how it affects the presentation, or what the tool returns. While the schema covers parameters, the lack of behavioral context and output information makes this inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('doc_name' and 'theme_name') fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining valid theme names or default behaviors. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 'Set presentation theme' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the action ('set') and resource ('presentation theme'), it lacks specificity about what a 'theme' entails in this context and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_available_themes' or 'set_slide_layout'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open presentation), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'get_available_themes' (which might list valid theme names) or 'set_slide_layout' (which might affect slide appearance differently).

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