Set Slide Transition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing effects. It does not mention that setting a transition overrides any existing transition, whether it is reversible, or what happens on invalid input. The list of styles is helpful but does not explain behavioral outcomes.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The imperative verb 'Set' and the enumerative list are immediately informative and space-efficient.

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 core purpose and the key parameter values, but omits context about other parameters (curve, timing, duration) and return behavior. Since no output schema exists, the description should hint at what the tool accomplishes beyond setting a style, but it is adequate for a simple setter with schema defaults documented.

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 description adds significant value for the 'style' parameter by enumerating valid values, which the schema only calls 'Transition style'. Other parameters (curve, timing, duration) have defaults in the schema, and although not mentioned in the description, the 80% schema coverage mitigates the gap.

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 sets a transition, enumerating the specific allowed styles (DISSOLVE, SLIDE_FROM_*, PUSH_FROM_*, SMART_ANIMATE, NONE). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which handle slide transitions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It merely lists transition styles without explaining context, such as requiring a slide to exist or how it relates to presentation mode. There are no exclusions or situational hints.

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