slides_rename

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 and provides essentially none. It does not mention required permissions, whether the old title is recoverable, side effects, or the multi-account auth implications introduced by the account parameter.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is undersized for a three-parameter mutation tool. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation operation, the description should say more about permissions, the result of the call, and the account-selection behavior. As written, an agent can guess the action but lacks enough context to call it confidently in multi-account scenarios.

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 description adds nothing to the schema, which already documents deck and account reasonably well while leaving title undescribed. With 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the remaining gap but makes no attempt to explain title's expected format or any constraints.

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 a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('presentation'), making the operation unambiguous. The resource type differentiates it from the docs_* siblings without needing to name them 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: you rename a presentation when its title needs changing. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like slides_copy for duplicating under a new name.

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