ingest_speaker_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the validation gate (stale context, missing/duplicate/out-of-range slides, schema violations rejected before saving) and the side effects (outline notes synchronized, speaker-script.md written). It leaves some traits unstated — whether re-ingesting overwrites prior notes, and how failures are reported — so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Correctly front-loaded: the one-line scope/effect statement and the stale-context rejection come first, validation and side effects next, and the export follow-up closes. The Args block is tidy and every sentence carries information — 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the prerequisite (a prior prepare call), failure conditions, side effects, and the downstream export step, which is what an agent needs to invoke it correctly; only idempotency/overwrite behavior is left open.

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%, so the Args section is the only documentation, and it explains each parameter's meaning and provenance: project_id must match the prepare call, script_json must match the response_schema that prepare returned, and script_context is the opaque token that must be passed back unchanged. That is meaningful semantics an agent cannot infer from the bare string types.

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 pair (validates and saves) plus the resource boundary: it writes notes only and leaves the deck's visual content intact, and it writes speaker-script.md plus outline notes. The only wobble is that the prose says 'notes' rather than explicitly 'speaker script', though the reference to prepare_speaker_script and the arg names remove any real ambiguity.

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?

Grounds usage in the sibling prepare_speaker_script call via 'Same project used in prepare_speaker_script' and the requirement for its response_schema/context, and routes the agent to export_html/export_pptx at the final checkpoint. It never states when NOT to call it, which keeps this short of a 5.

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