Update Slide Content

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

Given the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the API has no endpoint for the operation, making it evident that invoking this tool will not succeed. This is a significant behavioral trait transparently disclosed, though it does not specify the exact failure mode (e.g., error vs. no-op).

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, clear sentence that directly conveys the tool's non-implementable status. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, containing no unnecessary information.

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 tool that cannot be implemented, the description adequately warns the agent to avoid invocation, which is a critical piece of context. However, it does not provide guidance on alternative tools or what to do instead, leaving the agent without a complete resolution path. Given the 6 parameters and no output schema, this is a minimal-but-sufficient warning.

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 provides zero information about any of the 6 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate by explaining parameter semantics, but it does not. The parameters (e.g., body, merge, title) remain entirely undocumented.

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 a specific action or resource; instead, it declares the tool 'Not implementable' with a technical reason. This clearly signals the tool cannot perform its intended function, but it lacks a verb+resource purpose statement and does not distinguish it from sibling tools beyond declaring uselessness.

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 implies the tool should never be used, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternative tools (e.g., replace_text_placeholders, add_slide) that could achieve the intended functionality. The exclusion is clear, but the context of when to use alternatives is absent.

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