slide_update

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It never says whether omitted fields are left untouched or cleared, whether the batch is atomic or partially applied on failure, whether write permissions are required, or whether updates are reversible.

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. Minor redundancy: title and speaker notes are themselves metadata, so the enumeration is slightly awkward, but it's efficient overall.

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 batch mutation over a nested update array with no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot tell partial-failure behavior, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or what identifiers/confirmation come back.

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 slideId, title, notes and deckId are already documented. The description adds only the batch implication ('one or more slides'), which is already conveyed by the array with minItems 1, so it stays at 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?

Specific verb ('Update') plus resource ('slides') with the exact mutable fields named (metadata, title, speaker notes) and batch scope stated. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the closest siblings slide_collection_update or element_update, but the slide-level scope is clear.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing tells the agent when to pick this over slide_collection_update (collection-level changes) or element_update (content inside a slide). No prerequisites or preconditions (e.g., slide must exist, deck must be unlocked) are stated.

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