import_presentation_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the destructive nature ('Every slide it currently has is replaced'), clarifies that metadata is untouched, and details the parsing rules (splits on headings, ignores code blocks). This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before using a replacement 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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It uses three focused sentences to cover the main behavior, parsing details, and constraints without any filler. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive import with parsing rules), the description covers the essential behaviors: replacement of slides, untouched metadata, prerequisite existence, and the required input format. Since an output schema exists, explaining return values is unnecessary. The description is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'exactly one of markdown (inline content) or source_path (absolute path to a .md file) must be given,' thereby clarifying the two optional parameters. It also notes that presentation_id must already exist. This adds meaningful interpretation beyond the raw schema, though it could offer more detail on the id parameter itself.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace a presentation's slides by parsing pandoc slide Markdown.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_presentation or set_slide, and the inclusion of parsing mechanics further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to replace all slides of an existing presentation with content derived from markdown. It states the prerequisite that presentation_id must already exist and the constraint that exactly one input source must be provided. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., set_slide for single-slide edits), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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