ingest_design_slide

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

With no annotations, the description details the internal operations (validate, normalize, save, render, lint) and the return fields. While side effects are implied but not fully detailed, this is a reasonable level of transparency for a tool lacking annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with a summary, usage instruction, parameter list, return description, and workflow note. It is concise and front-loaded, with each sentence serving a purpose.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and return values, and provides workflow context relative to siblings. For a tool with an output schema, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: required fields, 1-based slide_index, color theme options, and the nature of spec_json. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Ingests the client-generated slide spec: validate, normalize, save, render, lint.' It also distinguishes its role in the workflow by referencing sibling tools like prepare_design_slide and finalize_design_spec.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to 'Call AFTER prepare_design_slide' and 'After ingesting ALL slides, call finalize_design_spec once.' This provides clear sequencing and context for when to use the tool.

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