Update slide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: this is a full replacement, not a patch, and the slide keeps its id and position. It says nothing about required permissions, failure modes when slide_id is unknown, or whether the deck must be unlocked, which matters for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, no waste, with the replace semantics and the caller obligation front-loaded before the retention guarantee. Nothing here is redundant.

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 3-required-param mutation with no annotations, no output schema and a free-form nested object, the description covers the destructive replace contract but omits permissions, error behavior, and the meaning of deck_id/slide_id. Adequate to invoke correctly, incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 33%: slide is documented as 'the complete slide, in the same shape as an add_slides item', while deck_id and slide_id are bare strings with no meaning given in either schema or description. The description reinforces the all-or-nothing semantics of slide, which is genuinely useful for a free-form nested object, but it does not compensate for the two undocumented identifiers.

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 ('Replace one slide') plus the replacement scope ('with a new definition'), which lets an agent separate it from add_slides, remove_slides and reorder_slides without opening their schemas. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(send the complete slide)' implies when this tool applies (you already have a slide and want to change it) and how it must be called, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for partial edits. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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