set_slide_layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Set slide layout' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't reveal whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing slide content when layout changes, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with only three words, this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description doesn't front-load important information or provide any structured explanation. Every word earns its place only in the most minimal sense, failing to convey necessary operational context for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is completely inadequate given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema. It doesn't explain what 'setting a slide layout' entails, what valid layout values are, how this affects existing content, what permissions are required, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that modifies presentation state, this level of incompleteness is unacceptable.

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 description provides no parameter information whatsoever, but the input schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation for all three parameters. The schema adequately explains that 'doc_name' defaults to the front document, 'slide_number' is required, and 'layout' is a required string type. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate despite the description adding zero value.

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 slide layout' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'set' and resource 'slide layout', but doesn't explain what this operation actually does or how it differs from similar tools like 'set_presentation_theme' or 'get_available_layouts'. The purpose remains vague beyond the literal interpretation of the name.

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 absolutely 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_layouts' (which might provide valid layout values) or 'set_presentation_theme' (which affects overall presentation styling). This leaves the agent with no contextual decision-making information.

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