Replace text in presentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that all occurrences are replaced (not just the first) and frames it as template filling, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether replacement affects slide notes, requires any specific permissions, or what happens when the search text is not found.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and scope. It earns every word.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the core operation but omits important contextual details such as scope limitations (only slides vs. notes), replacement behavior regarding formatting, and handling of missing matches. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%; each parameter (find, replace, matchCase, presentationId, account) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states 'Replace all occurrences of a string across a presentation' with a specific verb ('replace'), resource ('presentation'), and scope ('all occurrences'), and adds 'template filling' to clarify intended use. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling google_docs_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?

The phrase 'template filling' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over google_docs_replace_text or other Slides tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides implicit context but no explicit alternatives or conditions.

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