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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only discloses that the tool is a shim that dispatches to other tools, but it does not describe side effects, required permissions, or return behavior. Given the 'patches' parameter implies potential mutations, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, concise deprecation notice with clear alternatives, front-loaded with the most important information. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary filler.

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?

The tool has four parameters and an output schema, but the description doesn't explain how the shim works, which operations it supports, or what the return values look like. While it redirects to alternatives, it is incomplete as a standalone tool definition for direct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description adds no meaning to any of the four parameters. It doesn't explain 'operation', 'patches', 'slide_id', or 'presentation_id', leaving the agent with no guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 does not state a specific verb+resource; instead it labels the tool as deprecated and a dispatcher. It does point to clear alternatives (workiva_list_presentation_slides, etc.), making its role as a backward-compatibility shim somewhat clear, but the actual operations performed remain vague.

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 description explicitly says 'use workiva_list_presentation_layouts / workiva_list_presentation_slides / workiva_get_presentation_slide / workiva_update_presentation_slide' and explains this tool is kept as a backward-compatibility shim. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool (only for legacy calls) and directs to the alternatives.

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