Update text

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

The annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, destructive operation. The description adds important scope by specifying that ALL text inside the shape or text box is replaced, which helps an agent understand the destructive extent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key prerequisite. No wasted wording.

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?

Given the simple operation, full schema coverage, and destructive annotation, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain around formatting preservation and sibling-tool selection, but not enough to block correct use.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only reiterates that objectId comes from get_slide and adds no new meaning beyond the schema for presentationId or text.

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 states a specific action and scope: replacing all text inside a shape or text box. It is distinguishable from formatting or slide-level tools, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling replace_all_text.

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 provides a useful prerequisite by saying to get the object ID from get_slide. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this versus replace_all_text, format_text, add_text_box, or other sibling tools.

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