Replace Text Placeholders

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 clearly discloses that the tool cannot be implemented due to a missing API endpoint, which is a critical behavioral trait. It stops short of specifying what happens at call time (e.g., an error), but the core limitation is transparently stated.

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 a single, compact sentence that delivers the essential message ('Not implementable') with a clear reason. It is appropriately sized for its purpose and contains no unnecessary words, making it an excellent example of conciseness.

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 non-implementable tool, the description adequately communicates the key limitation and prevents the agent from attempting a doomed call. However, it is incomplete in that it does not suggest an alternative tool, does not explain the parameters, and does not state the expected failure mode. Given the context of sibling tools like update_slide_content, the description could be more useful.

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 input schema has two required parameters with zero schema description coverage, and the tool description does not mention them at all. It does not explain what presentationId or replacements would mean or why they cannot be used. The description adds no value to the parameters beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.

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 does not state what the tool does; it only states that it cannot be implemented. The name implies the intended function (replacing text placeholders), but the description fails to describe the operation itself, leaving the tool's purpose effectively unaddressed in a functional sense.

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 explicitly states 'Not implementable,' providing a clear when-not-to-use directive and highlighting that the tool should never be invoked. However, it does not mention any alternative tools (e.g., update_slide_content) that could achieve the goal, so it misses the alternatives component of ideal usage guidance.

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