batch_update

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses atomicity, quota cost, and field mask warnings. It also specifies the return format including replies and warnings. It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but those are standard for the API. The description provides substantial behavioral context beyond what annotations would provide.

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 well-structured with a summary, details, note, and clear args/returns. It is informative but compact for the complexity. A minor reduction in verbosity could improve conciseness, but it remains effective.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is quite complete. It covers inputs, outputs, and key behavioral traits. It doesn't discuss error handling or retries, but the provided output schema (not shown) likely covers return values. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently: explains that presentation_id is the ID, and describes requests as a list of single-key Slides request objects with examples and a link to the full list. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types.

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 tool applies raw Slides batchUpdate requests atomically, distinguishes it as the low-level power tool, and lists example request types with a link to the API reference. It effectively communicates the core function and 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 explains that batching many edits costs a single write quota and warns about required fields masks for certain operations. It implies context for use but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the 'low-level power tool' phrasing helps differentiate from siblings.

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