set_slide_background

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety and behavior burden. It discloses the stacking/back-layer behavior and the gradient effect of color2/angle, which is useful context beyond the bare schema. It could mention repeated-call or overwrite behavior, but the core side effect is clear.

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?

Three compact sentences deliver the main purpose, the key ordering constraint, the gradient option, and color format. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's main behavior and gradient parameters well, but with no annotations and no schema descriptions, it should also clarify doc_id and slide identification. The slide index base (0-based vs 1-based) is a notable missing detail for correct invocation.

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 for the parameters. It clearly explains color, color2, and angle semantics, including hex format and gradient direction. However, doc_id and slide are left entirely to inference, and the slide indexing convention is not specified.

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?

It states a specific action, 'Fill a slide's background', with the resource and purpose explicit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling slide tools like set_slide_content or add_slide.

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 ordering advice, 'Call this FIRST on a slide', and explains when color2 should be passed for a gradient. It does not explicitly list when-not scenarios or alternatives, but the layering instruction is strong usage guidance.

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