Replace all text

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's disclosure that the change spans the entire deck is genuinely useful scope information. However, it says nothing about whether speaker notes or non-text elements are affected, whether a count of replacements is returned, or whether the operation is easily reversible.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and scope with zero filler. Nothing is redundant.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope (whole deck) and intent. The remaining gap is what happens on success (replacement count, partial matches), which is minor but would help an agent verify the call.

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 findText, replaceText, matchCase, and presentationId are already documented in the schema with defaults and format hints. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('find and replace') and resource ('text across the whole deck'), and the phrase 'across the whole deck' implicitly separates it from the element-level update_text sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming that alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 'like Find & Replace in Slides' analogy and 'across the whole deck' imply this is the bulk-replace path, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs update_text or when-not guidance (e.g., single-element edits should use update_text instead).

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