update_slide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', which implies mutation, but does not state whether the update is a partial merge or full replacement, whether omitted fields are affected, whether changes are reversible, or whether it invalidates downstream artifacts like rendered slides or generated audio.

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. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's action, target, and scope.

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 simple partial-update tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate for identifying the call. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps about return values and behavioral side effects that would help an agent invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond what the property descriptions provide, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('an individual slide'), and the exact fields affected ('title or narration script'). This clearly differentiates update_slide from siblings like delete_slide, list_slides, and generate_script without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

Usage is implied: you would call this when modifying an existing slide's title or narration script rather than generating a new script or deleting the slide. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named.

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