deck_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutation operation and does not meet it: no mention of permissions/scopes, whether changes are immediate or reversible, or how expectedRevision conflicts are surfaced. It also says 'metadata or title' while the schema exposes only title as an updatable field, which overstates the scope of the mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple three-parameter mutation. It is efficient but arguably too lean to be fully useful given the absence of annotations.

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 zero annotations and no output schema, the definition should explain at minimum what is being changed, the required-field behavior, and the concurrency check. It leaves all of that unstated, and the 'metadata or title' phrasing is not borne out by the schema.

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 100%, so deckId, title, and expectedRevision are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about title constraints or the optimistic-concurrency behavior of expectedRevision, so it does not raise the score above that baseline.

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 names a specific verb (update) and resource (metadata or title of an existing presentation deck), so an agent can tell it targets decks rather than slides or elements. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with deck_create/deck_delete or the slide/element update siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that this is the right call for renaming an existing deck and not deck_create, deck_import, or slide_update from names alone.

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