set_slide_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating action ('set') but does not explain whether existing title/bullets are overwritten, what happens when both title and bullets are omitted, what happens if the index is out of range, or what the response contains. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a write operation.

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?

The description is highly concise and front-loaded, stating the core operation in the first sentence and then supplying necessary detail about the bullets parameter. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 provides enough information for an agent to construct a basic call with doc_id, index, title, and bullets. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves out edge-case behavior such as clearing existing content, handling an invalid slide index, or what the tool returns. This makes it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds critical meaning by specifying that the index is 0-based and that bullets is a list of strings with one string per bullet line. The title parameter's role is also clarified through 'title and/or bullet body,' and doc_id is self-evident as the document identifier.

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 tool's function: 'Set a slide's title and/or bullet body by 0-based slide index.' This is a specific verb and resource and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like set_slide_background or add_shape. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives within the description.

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?

The intended use is implied by the phrase 'set a slide's title and/or bullet body,' making it clear this is for editing slide content rather than background or layout. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings like add_textbox or find_and_replace, and no mention of prerequisites such as the slide needing to already exist.

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