submit_slide_briefs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior: no API call, unchanged briefs retain their existing image, and changed briefs become pending. However it says nothing about failure modes for invalid briefs, whether saving is reversible, permission requirements, or how 'changed' is determined.

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?

Front-loads the action in the first sentence and then adds the timing/behavioral detail compactly with no filler. The second sentence is dense but each clause carries information about the update semantics.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers when to call it and the diff behavior, which is the most important part. It omits the structure of the nested brief payload and any indication of what the call returns or reports back, leaving a real gap for a two-required-parameter tool.

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 parameters are required, yet the description explains neither the shape of a brief object nor what 'presentation' refers to (ID, name, slug). 'Full batch' does imply all briefs must be submitted rather than a delta, which is a useful semantic hint, but it does not compensate for the fully opaque schema.

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 (the full batch of visual briefs), which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like submit_deck_plan, approve_plan, and generate_deck_images. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Accepted after plan approval and again after generation' gives explicit timing windows for when the tool should be called, which is unusually concrete. It stops short of stating what to do instead when those preconditions are unmet (e.g., call approve_plan first) or naming an alternative tool.

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