studio_revise

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

No annotations, so description bears full burden. It clearly states the original artifact is not modified and a new artifact is created. However, it does not mention potential side effects like resource usage.

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?

Description is well-structured with purpose, usage notes, args list, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers the revision process, non-destructive behavior, and polling requirement. Output schema exists but not described; however, the key outcome (new artifact) is stated. Could mention return value but sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains all parameters: notebook_id, artifact_id, slide_instructions (with format and example), and confirm (must be True). The example further clarifies usage.

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 'Revise individual slides in an existing slide deck. Creates a NEW artifact.' It specifies the action (revise), resource (slides), and distinguishes from creation tools like studio_create.

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?

Explicitly says 'Only slide decks support revision.' and instructs to poll studio_status for readiness. Also requires confirm=True after user approval, guiding the agent on when and how to invoke.

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