slides_replace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses operational scope (all slides, shapes and tables) and the occurrence=Nth-match behavior, but omits whether the deck is permanently mutated, permission/auth requirements, and what the operation returns; "Verified against the saved deck" is suggestive but vague.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant filler. The trailing "Verified against the saved deck" is slightly vague but minor.

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 mutation tool with 8 params, nested objects, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and input modes adequately but leaves auth/permission behavior and side effects (does it save the deck?) underspecified.

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 63% and find/replace/regex have no schema descriptions. The description compensates by explaining the two input modes (find+replace vs replacements map) and clarifying that occurrence targets only the Nth match, adding real meaning beyond the raw field names.

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 (find and replace) and resource (Slides), and scopes it precisely to 'every slide (shapes and tables)'. The phrase "Slides' own" implies it uses the native Slides mechanism, which helps distinguish it, though it does not explicitly name docs_replace as an alternative.

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?

Gives clear context: use find + replace for simple cases, or replacements: {find: replace, …} to fill a template's placeholders in one call. This conveys when each form applies, but offers no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative.

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