google_slides_batch_updateSend raw Slides API batchUpdate requests to create textboxes, shapes, images, and style elements in Google Slides presentations.
Send raw Slides batchUpdate requests (create textboxes, shapes, images, style elements, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| requests | Yes | Slides API batchUpdate requests array. | |
| presentationId | Yes | Presentation ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.30Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'send requests', which implies mutation but doesn't state that changes are irreversible, require specific permissions, or what the response contains. It's silent on auth, rate limits, and side effects.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the core action and gives illustrative examples. No unnecessary words, though it could include a link to documentation without harming 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?
This is a raw API tool with a complex request array, yet the description provides no information on how to construct valid requests, what fields are supported, or how the response is structured. The schema's 'requests' property has empty items, so the agent is left with no guidance. This is severely inadequate for a low-level 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain the structure of the 'requests' array, which is critical since the schema items are empty.
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 action (send batchUpdate requests) and the resource (Slides presentation), with examples of what can be created. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being 'raw', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the higher-level slides tools like add_slide or replace_text.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the low-level escape hatch for operations not covered by the other slides tools, nor does it suggest when to prefer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.