studio_revise

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

Despite no annotations, the description reveals that the tool creates a new artifact (non-destructive), does not modify the original, and requires polling studio_status for completion. It lacks details on auth or error handling but is otherwise forthcoming.

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?

Three sentences, each essential: first states action, second clarifies limitation, third gives follow-up instruction. No wasted words.

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 tool's effect (new artifact), its usage restriction (slide decks only), and post-call action (poll studio_status). It covers the key aspects for an async tool with an output schema.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying artifact_id source (from studio_status) and specifying that confirm must be True after user approval, plus an example for slide_instructions.

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 it revises individual slides in an existing slide deck and creates a new artifact. It distinguishes from sibling tools like studio_create (create new deck) and studio_status (poll readiness).

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 implies usage for revising slide decks and notes that only slide decks support revision. It provides context but does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives.

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