Update deck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Change" implies mutation, but the description says nothing about permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, how omitted fields are handled, 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. It is arguably too terse for a six-parameter mutation tool, so brevity here is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema coverage, the description should compensate for the missing structured context but does not. An agent cannot determine field semantics or behavioral constraints from what is written.

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 only 17% (only the theme enum is documented). The description loosely implies theme and "metadata," but adds no meaning for title, subtitle, ref, repo, or the required deck_id, leaving five of six parameters unexplained.

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 clear verb ("Change") and resource ("deck"), and hints at two attribute categories (metadata, theme). However, "metadata" is vague and does not tell the agent which fields (title, subtitle, ref, repo) are actually in scope, so the purpose is only partially specific.

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 use update_deck versus siblings like update_slide, create_deck, or get_deck, and no preconditions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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