Adicionar slide

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it highlights components by IFC GUID and modifies an existing presentation, which is extra behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose side effects, error handling, or return values, which are important for a mutation tool. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides minimal additional behavioral context, scoring a 3.

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, succinct sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and includes a specific detail (highlighting components). There is no redundant or irrelevant content, making it appropriately concise.

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?

With full parameter documentation in the schema and annotations covering read/write and destructive safety, the description provides the essential purpose and the prerequisite of an existing presentation. However, it does not explain return values or error behavior, which is typical for a mutation tool. Given the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete, meriting a 3.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 11 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'componentes por GUID IFC' relates to the 'components' parameter but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already contains. Per the rubric, the baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool adds a slide (issue) to an existing presentation and highlights components by IFC GUID. It specifies the action, resource, and distinct behavior, making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like solibri_create_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 explicitly states the tool operates on an existing presentation ('a uma apresentacao existente'), which is a clear prerequisite and usage context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for a 4.

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