document.set_slide_transition

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: the operation is a mutation that 'round-trips through the <p:transition> node on save' (i.e. persistence semantics), an empty string clears the transition, and duration is in seconds defaulting to 0. It stops short of error behavior for invalid kinds or out-of-range indexes.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with backticked parameter names and no filler. The one redundancy is the duration sentence duplicating the schema's 'Seconds. Default 0.' almost verbatim, which costs a little.

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 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how to clear, units, scope, and save-time persistence — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the ambiguous index handling and unstated 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 coverage is only 33% (only duration is documented in-schema), so the description must compensate. It explains 'kind' thoroughly with concrete PowerPoint names and the empty-string clearing convention, and '(default: current)' partially explains 'index', though it never states indexing base (0- vs 1-based) or explicit default.

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 pair (set/clear) and a specific resource (slide transition), and immediately clarifies the default scope (current slide). No sibling tool touches transitions, so it is trivially distinguishable from set_slide_background / set_slide_notes / set_slide_title.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: '(default: current)' hints at targeting the current slide unless an index is given, and '"" to clear' tells you how to remove a transition. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing or mention of preconditions (e.g. whether the slide must exist or be selected).

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