apple_keynote_update_slide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that changes "may autosave and sync" and that the target is addressed by a fragile current 1-based index, both of which are behavioral facts the annotations do not convey.

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 tight sentences: the action and scope are front-loaded, and the sequencing caveat follows. Every clause carries information with no filler.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and side effects (autosave/sync). It omits return behavior, out-of-range index handling, and any permission/authorization context, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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% (just documentName), so the description must compensate. It does name the updatable fields (title, body, presenter notes, skipped) and clarifies that slideIndex is 1-based, but it adds no format or constraint detail for the four undocumented parameters, leaving the coverage gap only partially closed.

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 (Update) plus resource (Keynote slide) and enumerates the mutable fields: default title/body, presenter notes, skipped status. This distinguishes it from apple_keynote_add_slide and apple_keynote_list_slides by name semantics, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

"List slides immediately before modifying" gives a concrete workflow prerequisite pointing at apple_keynote_list_slides, which is genuinely useful. However, it gives no when-not-to-use conditions and does not explicitly frame the alternative tools, so usage is only implied.

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