set_presentation_size

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation affects the whole deck, identifies the default value, and warns to call it once before layout. It does not describe what happens if called after slides already exist, but for a simple setter this is mostly sufficient.

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, purposeful sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is placed directly after the operation definition.

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 low-complexity tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, valid values, default, and timing. The only notable gap is the unstated meaning of doc_id and any effects on existing slides if called after layout.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the 'preset' parameter by listing valid values and the default, but it does not explain 'doc_id' at all, leaving one of two parameters to be inferred.

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 the verb 'Set' and the resource 'slide aspect ratio for the whole deck', and it enumerates the valid values ('16:9' or '4:3'). This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like set_slide_background or content-insertion tools.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this once on a new presentation before laying out slides.' This tells the agent when in the workflow to invoke it, though it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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