Update slideshow run

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them. It explains that unspecified fields are preserved, that baseRevision is required for optimistic concurrency, that a mismatch returns 409 Conflict with no auto-merge and requires a fresh get_slideshow_run, and that the response increments the revision number.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then proceeds through prerequisites, exclusions, concurrency behavior, and patch modes. Despite covering a complex mutation, every sentence contributes operationally relevant context and there is little or no filler.

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 complex partial-update tool with eleven parameters, nested objects, an output schema, and non-idempotent concurrency semantics, the description covers the necessary operational context. It explains mutation scope, preservation semantics, revision locking, conflict behavior, and return behavior, so the agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all eleven parameters. The description still adds useful semantic relationships beyond the schema, particularly that pageIndex is 0-indexed and must be paired with slots, layout, style, or decorations for single-slide patches, and that pack overrides the entire deck for whole-deck updates.

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: partially update an existing Slideshow Run by runId. It enumerates the mutable aspects (slide copy, slot bindings, layout, styling, brand settings) and explicitly distinguishes this tool from create_slideshow_run and delete_slideshow_run, so an agent can identify it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call get_slideshow_run first to obtain the revision and slide data, and do not use this tool to create or delete runs. It also states when to provide pageIndex with slots/layout/style versus when to provide pack for the entire deck, leaving no routing ambiguity.

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