Add slides

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: it returns the outline plus warnings (unmatched callouts, unknown ids) and that changes appear live in an open viewer. It does not address mutation semantics such as permission needs, idempotency, or whether appended slides can be undone.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with no filler. The parenthetical warning examples add useful detail without bloating the text.

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 a large polymorphic schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the return shape, the live-viewer side effect, and where to find slide-type detail. Permissions and mutation semantics are the remaining gap, but the tool is largely self-explanatory at the agent level.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is only 33%, with deck_id and slides undocumented at the top level, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'after' insert behavior and offloads the many slide types to authoring_guide, but deck_id and the overall slides contract get nothing beyond what the nested schema already shows.

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 and resource ('Append slides to a deck') and covers the insert variant, which is enough to distinguish it from create_deck (new deck) and update_slide (single slide). It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'append... or insert after a slide id', but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative such as update_slide or reorder_slides. The pointer to authoring_guide is a helpful related-tool reference but not a selection rule.

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