set_slice

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, confirming this is a mutation on closed local data. The description adds useful detail on data encoding behavior (strings pass through, dicts/lists are JSON-encoded and round-trip via export_slice_metadata) which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't say whether undefined fields are left alone or cleared, whether the name change via new_name vs name behaves how, or what happens if the slice doesn't exist.

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?

Two short paragraphs; the first sentence front-loads purpose and the second adds targeted detail on the data param. No wasted words, though the encoding note could be trimmed slightly.

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?

9 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations beyond safety flags, and description only covers one parameter's behavior. For a 9-param mutation tool the description leaves substantial gaps — how bounds interact, what new_name vs name does, and error behavior are all unstated.

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 0% — no parameter is documented in the schema. The description explains data encoding semantics for the 'data' param but says nothing about x/y/width/height/fileName semantic constraints, nor the difference between 'name' (required) and 'new_name'. Partial compensation at baseline 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?

Clearly states 'Update an existing slice's bounds, name, colour, or data' — specific verb (update) plus resource (slice) plus enumerable fields. Distinguishes itself from siblings add_slice/remove_slice/list_slices, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance about when to use this vs add_slice or remove_slice, no mention of prerequisites like whether the slice must already exist, and no exclusions. The 'existing' implies the slice must pre-exist but this is only weakly inferred.

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