Check a deck outline

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does add specific validation behavior: counting slides/bullets and flagging empty slides or long bullets over 160 characters. However, it does not state that the tool is read-only, describe the return format, or mention side effects, which are gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and key validation details. Every clause adds useful information without repetition.

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 one-parameter validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and checks but leaves the outline format and exact return shape unspecified. It is adequate but not complete enough to eliminate ambiguity.

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 single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It identifies the input as a Merlin Slides outline and implies the validation rules, but it does not specify the expected outline syntax or format.

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 gives a specific verb (validate), a specific resource (Merlin Slides outline), and the checks performed (slides/bullets count, empty slides, >160-char bullets). The phrase 'before you build' also distinguishes it from the sibling build_deck tool.

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?

It clearly states the timing context: use it before building. It does not explicitly name build_deck or describe when not to use it, but the pre-build validation role is clear.

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