slides_edit

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: steps run in order in one editor tab, changes are verified against the saved deck. It does not state auth/account requirements or failure behavior beyond 'verified', and the account parameter's purpose is only in the schema, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and sibling scope in the first clause; the rest is a tight enumerated list of operations. It is long but every clause maps to a step action, with little repetition.

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 complex 3-parameter tool with nested step objects, no output schema and no annotations, the description orients the agent but does not explain the step ordering/verification semantics in depth (e.g., what 'verified against the saved deck' means on failure, the 80-step limit, account switching). Adequate minimum viable context, with clear 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?

Schema coverage is 67% and the description names the key step families (go to slide, select shape by number or role, select text, type over, format, keys, menu commands, undo). It does not add syntax beyond the schema (e.g., what 'contains/occurrence' means or the step cap of 80), so it complements but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (edit) and resource (presentation) plus the mechanism (human steps), and explicitly scopes itself against the sibling: 'for what slides_write does not cover'. An agent can distinguish it from slides_write and slides_type without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative (slides_write) and the boundary condition (what slides_write does not cover), and lists the concrete operation families it handles (typing over text, formatting, menu commands, undo). The step vocabulary in the schema mirrors that usage list.

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