slides_replace_all_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the action without noting consequences such as irreversibility, effect on all slides, or whether all occurrences are replaced. This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the action and scope, earning 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?

The description covers the core functionality but omits details such as whether replacement applies to all text elements (including speaker notes) and how matching behavior works by default. The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the description could be more complete regarding operational scope.

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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the four parameters (presentation_id, find_text, replace_text, match_case). It relies entirely on parameter names, which are somewhat self-explanatory but lack contextual details like how match_case affects the search.

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 'Find and replace text across an entire presentation' with a concrete example ('filling in a template'), specifying both the action and the resource scope. This differentiates it from sibling tools like slides_set_text which target specific elements.

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 context for typical use (template filling) and emphasizes 'entire presentation', implying a global operation unlike element-specific tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like slides_batch_update or docs_find_replace.

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