set_slide_text

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real behavior — that a bare string writes to the slide title, and that an object maps named targets to values — but it never states that existing text is overwritten, whether formatting survives, or how out-of-range indexes or unknown target names fail.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block that carries all the real information. No filler sentences; the only minor cost is the docstring formatting, which is functional rather than wasted.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the parameter story is complete but the behavioral story is thin — nothing about overwrite semantics, side effects on formatting, or what the call returns. An agent could call it correctly but not predict its effects.

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%, yet the description compensates well: 'index' is stated as zero-based, and 'content' is explained as either a title string or a target map with an enumerated list of valid targets ('title', 'subtitle', 'body', 'content', placeholder index as string, or shape name) and value forms (strings or lists of paragraphs). Only the distinction between 'body' and 'content' targets and the failure mode for invalid targets remains unstated.

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 opening line names a specific verb and resource ('Set the text of a slide'), so an agent immediately knows this mutates slide text content. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'replace_text' or 'add_text_box', leaving the agent to infer the boundary from name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over 'replace_text' or 'add_text_box', no prerequisites (does the presentation need to be open?), and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Set'.

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