Edit a presentation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that by stating 'Saved as new copies; the originals are only read', clarifying that edits do not mutate sources. It still omits permission/auth needs and whether an existing output is silently skipped vs overwritten.

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 the core purpose and then lists capabilities compactly, with the important non-destructiveness note in a short closing sentence. The middle enumeration is dense but every clause names a genuine capability, so there is little waste.

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?

For a 25-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description gives an accurate capability map and clarifies the read-only-to-source behavior. It leaves gaps around how the many optional parameters interact (e.g. add_at vs delete_slides ordering), but the schema carries much of that detail.

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 72%, and the description conceptually names many operations (replace text, theme, colour/font scheme, speaker notes, transitions, slide numbers, footer) that map to parameters. However it adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents, so it lands at the baseline.

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 ('Open ... presentations and change them') and enumerates concrete operations: find/replace, theme/colour/font scheme, add/delete slides, notes, transitions, footers. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing create_presentation for add-slide semantics and by noting outputs are new copies.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated capabilities, and it cross-references create_presentation for slide-adding semantics, but it never states when to choose edit_presentation over convert_presentation, render_slides or run_deckcraft_commands. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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