Raw batch update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is an escape hatch for raw API requests, but does not explain validation, atomicity, partial failure behavior, or authentication requirements.

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?

The description is three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted text. The escape-hatch purpose and usage condition are stated immediately.

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 raw API escape hatch with fully covered parameters and existing destructive annotations, the description gives enough context to select and invoke the tool. A brief note on response or error behavior could improve completeness, but the API reference pointer covers much of the missing 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description points users to the Slides API request reference and clarifies that requests are raw API payloads, but it does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a raw Google Slides API batchUpdate escape hatch. It specifies the resource and operation, and explicitly distinguishes it from the other specialized tools when edits are not covered.

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?

It gives clear usage guidance: use this for advanced edits not covered by the other tools. The alternative is the set of specialized sibling tools, though no specific siblings are named and no additional exclusions are provided.

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