slide_collection_update

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavior beyond the schema: slideIds is a full replacement of the ordered membership rather than an append or add, which warns the agent that existing ordering can be overwritten. It says nothing about whether omitted fields are left untouched, whether removed slides are unlinked or deleted, permission requirements, or reversibility.

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 enumerating the three mutation capabilities with no filler. Every clause maps to a real parameter group.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with five parameters and no output schema, the definition covers what can change but not the consequences. An agent still lacks guidance on whether slideIds replacement is destructive, whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, and what a successful call returns.

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 each of the five parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion that slideIds is ordered and replaces prior membership; it does not clarify the partial-update semantics implied by only deckId and slideCollectionId being required.

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 set and resource: rename, update description, and replace ordered slide membership on a slide collection. This clearly separates it from slide-level tools such as slide_update and slide_move, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from the create/delete siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the verbs 'rename', 'update', and 'replace' signal an operation on an existing collection, which is sufficient to exclude slide_collection_create. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. the collection must already exist), and no mention of alternatives.

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