Update a slide

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the precise blast radius: speaker notes survive unless the new content carries <Notes> or keepNotes is false, only that slide's lines change, and on slide 0 the replace preserves deck settings. That is exactly the "what gets destroyed vs. preserved" context annotations cannot express.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence establishes the action, then each clause carries a distinct mutation rule with no filler. The nested parentheses around notes and headmatter make it dense to parse but every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing mutation semantics (notes retention, headmatter special case, line-scoped writes). It doesn't say whether content and patch may be combined in one call or what happens on an invalid slide/index, which is the remaining gap for a 6-parameter destructive tool.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates well: it defines content as an MDX body replacement, frontmatter as a full replacement, and patch as a shallow merge where null deletes a key. keepNotes is only referenced in passing ("unless ... keepNotes is false") and its default/effect when content lacks <Notes> requires inference, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Change one slide") and immediately enumerates the three mutation modes (content, frontmatter, patch). It doesn't name a sibling such as deck_update_frontmatter to draw the boundary, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 differentiates the three modes internally (replace body vs. replace frontmatter vs. merge keys), which is genuinely useful routing information. However, it never says when to use this instead of deck_update_frontmatter, slide_add, or notes_set, nor are any preconditions stated — usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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