edit_slide_zip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that files are reimported in a single operation and that Content_Types are auto-registered for new chart files, which is useful. However, it does not state that existing paths are overwritten, nor does it cover permissions, failure modes, or return behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds practical information: input shape, add/modify behavior, Content_Types side effect, and the read-first prerequisite.

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 multi-file zip mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, input map, side effect, and prerequisite well enough to invoke it correctly. It leaves return values and error behavior unstated, which is a moderate but not critical 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the files map as { path: content } and mentions adding chart XML and rels, but this largely repeats the schema's own files description and adds no new syntax or constraints beyond it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: update multiple files in the slide zip and reimport them in one operation. It differentiates from single-file XML editing implicitly via 'multiple files' and the map input, but does not explicitly name edit_slide_xml as the alternative.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: 'Use read_slide_zip first to get the current content.' It does not explicitly explain when to use this versus edit_slide_xml or edit_slide_chart, but the batch-update context is clear.

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