ingest_slide_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool validates, saves (insert for add), renders, and lints. It describes the return JSON fields. It does not detail error conditions or side effects beyond state modification, but the behavioral traits are sufficiently conveyed for a mutation tool.

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 concise opening line, a clear usage instruction, bulleted parameter list, return details, and a highlighted follow-up. Every sentence adds value, and the critical information is front-loaded. No unnecessary text is present.

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 explains the return type with key fields, and the output schema exists to provide full details. It notes a required follow-up, which is crucial for the tool's workflow. Given the complexity of 5 parameters and the presence of many sibling tools, the description provides sufficient context to use the tool correctly, though it could briefly mention prerequisites like project existence.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides explicit explanations for each parameter: project_id as mandatory, action with values 'add' or 'update', slide_index as 1-based and same as prepare, spec_json as client-generated, and color_theme with default 'dark'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal type/default information.

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 verb 'ingests an add/update slide spec' and the resource 'slide spec'. It lists the sequence of actions: validate, save, render, lint. It distinguishes from the sibling 'prepare_slide_edit' by explicitly stating to call it after that tool, making its role in the pipeline unambiguous.

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 this tool 'AFTER prepare_slide_edit with the same action/slide_index and your spec JSON'. It also notes a required follow-up call to 'export_html'. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context of sibling tools and the sequential instruction provide clear usage guidance.

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