apple_keynote_add_slide

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — 'Changes may autosave and sync' — but says nothing about failure modes, invalid layout names, or where the slide lands relative to the required document.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The second sentence about autosave is short and earns its place by flagging a side effect.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition omits the most consequential detail: what it returns and how the agent identifies the newly appended slide for a later apple_keynote_update_slide call. The documentName prerequisite (document must exist/open) is also left implicit.

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 only 17% (documentName alone), so the description must carry the rest; it names every remaining parameter and adds real meaning — layoutName must be an *exact* master-slide layout name, and title/body are *default* (placeholder) values that can be changed later. It stops short of saying how to discover valid layout names or how 'skipped' behaves in presentation mode.

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 and resource ('Append a Keynote slide') plus the fields it can set, so an agent can distinguish it from apple_keynote_update_slide and apple_keynote_create. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must the document already be open, does documentName refer to an open doc?), and no routing against the obvious alternative apple_keynote_update_slide. The only conditional hint is the word 'optionally' attached to layoutName.

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