submit_deck_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and 'No API call' is a genuinely useful disclosure that this is a local validation rather than a remote mutation. However, it does not explain what validation is performed, what happens to invalid plans, or whether the save is durable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one behavioral fact worth knowing. No filler.

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 tool with a required free-form nested object, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin — it never explains what a valid plan looks like or what the validation returns. The 'No API call' note helps but does not close the structural gap.

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 the plan parameter is a free-form nested object with additionalProperties, so the schema gives an agent almost nothing. The description does not describe the plan structure or what the presentation identifier refers to, leaving a real 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 pair (validate and save) and resource (proposed slide plan), plus the workflow purpose (user review). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like approve_plan or submit_slide_briefs.

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?

The phrase 'for user review' faintly implies this is a hand-off step before approval, but no alternatives are named and no when/when-not guidance is given. Given siblings like approve_plan and submit_slide_briefs, an agent gets no routing help.

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