mark_slide_for_regeneration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses 'No API call,' signaling this is a local/queued mutation rather than a network operation, but it omits permissions, reversibility, and what happens to the slide's existing state once queued.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the action is stated first and the behavioral caveat follows.

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 two-parameter queue operation this is mostly adequate, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, an agent lacks the identifier semantics and the post-queue workflow detail needed to invoke it confidently.

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 0% and both required parameters ('presentation', 'slide') are bare strings. The description adds no meaning about their format, identifiers, or relationship, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it queues an already-generated slide for another attempt with the same brief. The phrase 'already-generated slide' implicitly distinguishes it from fresh-generation siblings like generate_deck_images, though it doesn't name any alternative directly.

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: 'another attempt with the same brief' suggests when to use it, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no reference to sibling tools such as generate_deck_images or preview_slide_prompt.

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