update_presentation_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the partial-update behavior ('Only fields given a value are changed'), which is valuable, but it leaves ambiguity about null handling (e.g., whether null clears a field) and does not mention permissions, errors, or reversibility.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. Every piece of information (scope, fields, partial update) earns its place.

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 simple metadata-update tool, the description is adequate but has gaps: it doesn't clarify how to clear a field (since null is allowed), nor does it mention prerequisites or failure modes. The existence of an output schema may cover return values, but the description alone is 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the updatable fields and explains the update semantics, which is critical given the schema only lists types and defaults. Presentation_id is implied as the target identifier, though not explicitly described.

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 updates title-slide metadata on an existing presentation and enumerates the specific fields (title/subtitle/author/institute/date). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_presentation and set_slide, which handle creation and slide content respectively.

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: it operates on an existing presentation and only changes fields given a value. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough to infer appropriate usage.

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