themes_set_slide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing slide content, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include any redundant content.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes valid slide data, how to determine available theme slides, what permissions are required, whether the update is immediate or queued, or what happens on success/failure. Given the complexity implied by the nested slideData object and the mutation nature of the operation, more context is needed.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, themeSlide, slideData). The description doesn't add any meaningful context about parameter usage beyond what's in the schema - no examples of valid slide identifiers, no explanation of slideData structure, no guidance on how to obtain theme IDs. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Update') and target ('a specific slide in a theme'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'themes_get_slide' or 'themes_get_all', which could be confusing in this context with many presentation-related tools.

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. With numerous sibling tools for managing presentations, announcements, playlists, and themes, there's no indication of when this specific slide update function is appropriate versus other theme or presentation modification tools.

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