set_speaker_notesReplaces the speaker notes for a specific slide in a Google Slides presentation, allowing presenters to update their notes directly.
Replace a slide's speaker notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | Yes | Speaker notes text | |
| slideId | Yes | Slide (page) object ID from get_presentation or list_slides | |
| presentationId | Yes | Presentation ID. Found in the Google Slides URL: docs.google.com/presentation/d/<ID>/edit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The word "Replace" is consistent with that and implies prior notes are overwritten, but the description does not say whether existing notes are lost irreversibly, whether it works on slides with no notes yet, or whether the presentation must be writable.
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 with zero waste. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, which the other dimensions already capture.
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 destructive three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition is only minimally sufficient: annotations cover the safety signal and the schema covers inputs, but the description says nothing about the replace semantics (full overwrite vs. merge) or failure modes.
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 100% and each parameter is documented (including where to find presentationId and slideId). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Replace a slide's speaker notes"), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. There are no sibling tools that touch speaker notes, so no differentiation is needed, but it also gives no scope detail (per-slide only, whole-notes replacement vs. append).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as needing an existing slide ID. The agent must infer everything from the schema's parameter descriptions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.