workiva_update_presentation_slide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the JSON Patch mechanism but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or behavior on invalid patches. It only says 'update', which implies mutation but lacks detail.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args block is formatted compactly, adding parameter context without excessive prose.

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 output schema exists and the tool is a straightforward update, the description covers the core operation. However, it doesn't explain how the patch array is applied, what valid operations are, or any constraints. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this leaves some gaps.

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 Args section adds meaning: 'presentation_id: The presentation UUID' clarifies the ID format, and 'patches: JSON Patch array' explains the structure. However, 'slide_id' is described only as 'The slide ID', adding no format detail beyond the schema, and the schema coverage is 0%.

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 'Update a presentation slide via JSON Patch' with a clear verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling get/list slide tools, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of other update tools in the sibling list. It only describes the operation itself, not prerequisites or alternatives.

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