Set speaker notes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with them: "Replace" plus "an empty string removes them" tells the agent that a call can erase existing notes. Beyond that it adds no permission, error, or return-shape context, though with annotations and an output schema present the burden is lower.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action first, then the content convention, then the removal case. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With annotations carrying the safety profile and an output schema present, the description covers the one undocumented parameter and the destructive edge case. It leaves out only minor operational detail such as behavior on an invalid or out-of-range slide.

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 67%: slide and dir are documented in the schema, while notes is bare. The description compensates for notes only partially, defining the [click] convention and empty-string semantics but not formatting, length limits, or how markers map to reveals beyond a hint.

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?

"Replace a slide's speaker notes" states a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical "shown in the presenter view" disambiguates notes from other slide content. It stops short of naming slide_update or explaining why a dedicated notes tool exists, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 gives content-level usage guidance (put [click] where each click's part begins) and the removal case (empty string). It does not say when to reach for this instead of slide_update or what preconditions apply (slide must exist, authored order vs. h.v).

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