set_speaker_notes

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' implies a mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this overwrites existing notes, requires specific permissions, affects presentation state, or provides any response format. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unexplained.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral impact (e.g., whether changes are saved immediately), error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies presentation state, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters ('slide_number', 'notes', 'doc_name') with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details for 'notes' or default behavior for 'doc_name'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Set') and resource ('presenter notes on a slide'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_speaker_notes' by specifying a write operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other slide-editing tools like 'edit_text_item' or 'clear_slide' in terms of scope.

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 comparisons to similar tools like 'edit_text_item' for modifying other slide content. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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