studio_revise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavior: creates a new artifact, does not modify original, and advises polling status. It does not cover auth needs or rate limits, but these are not critical for a revision 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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. It uses a clear structure: sentence, guidelines, parameter details, and example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: parameters, post-call behavior (polling), and the effect (new artifact). It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: notebook_id, artifact_id, slide_instructions with structure and example, and confirm with its requirements. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Revise individual slides in an existing slide deck. Creates a NEW artifact.' It uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like studio_create and studio_delete by focusing on revision.

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 provides clear usage context: only slide decks support revision, original is not modified, and polling is needed. It explains the confirm flag requires user approval. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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