office_slide_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the presentation is reloaded in the editor, slide is 1-based, and notes replaces speaker notes on pptx vs adds a notes box on odp. However it is silent on the destructive nature of 'delete', permissions/auth requirements, and reversibility, which are material for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then action semantics, then sibling routing, with every sentence carrying information. It is dense but no sentence is wasted; the layout enumerations are slightly list-heavy but justified given 0% schema coverage.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers actions, parameter meanings, format-specific notes behavior, and cross-tool routing. It stops short of documenting delete's destructiveness and permission requirements, which holds it below a 5.

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, and it largely does: it explains action values, slide indexing, layout enum values, and the title/body/notes semantics including format-specific behavior. Only 'path' is left unexplained, so the gap is minor relative to the seven parameters.

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+resource (edit a pptx/odp presentation) and immediately differentiates scope from siblings by enumerating the actions it owns (list/add/set/notes/delete). It also draws the boundary against office_format_tool, office_media_tool, office_table_tool and office_chart_tool, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes other tasks to the correct siblings (fonts -> office_format_tool, pictures/video -> office_media_tool, tables/charts -> office_table_tool/office_chart_tool). The action vocabulary and format-specific notes semantics give concrete when-to-use guidance with no reliance on inference.

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