tosea_switch_template

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'exactly one template source' which implies mutual exclusivity but doesn't specify error behavior if multiple are provided. It does not state that the tool creates a new presentation (side effect), required permissions, or what the response contains.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is concise (20 words) with no fluff, and front-loads the key action.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It lacks details about the purpose of render_model and logo_file_id, whether the new presentation is a copy, and what the tool returns. The description is too sparse for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains three parameters (template_name, user_template_id, system_template_key) and implicitly presentation_id, but two parameters (render_model, logo_file_id) are left unexplained. The description adds meaning to half the parameters, insufficient for full coverage.

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 the action: 'Fork an existing presentation into a new presentation using exactly one template source.' It specifies the resource (existing presentation) and the three mutually exclusive template parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tosea_edit_slide_page or tosea_export_presentation.

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 description implies when to use the tool (forking with a template) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. It lacks context like 'use this when you need to create a new presentation based on an existing one with a different template, rather than editing in place.'

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