Set slide transitions

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

Annotations cover the mutation and closed-world profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the lower bar applies. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: what each transition visually does and the cycling semantics of `styles` over the target slides. It stops short of saying whether existing transitions are overwritten or what happens with an invalid style id, capping it at 4.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the style enumeration directly supports parameter choice. The longer list of styles is informative rather than padding.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description covers the domain well: default scope is implied by the schema and the style semantics are explained. Minor gaps remain around overwrite behavior and error handling, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining what each `style` value actually means (smooth, swoop, punch, etc.) and clarifying that `styles` cycles rather than zips. This meaningfully helps an agent choose parameter values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sets how the camera travels into slides') and enumerates the transition styles, so an agent knows exactly what the tool manipulates. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like animate or auto_animate, which handle element animation rather than slide transitions, but the naming is clear enough to infer the split.

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 explains the available styles and notes that `styles` cycles a list over slides, which implies when to pick a single style vs the cycling variant. However, it never states when to use this tool versus animate/auto_animate, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that the deck must exist), so usage is only implied.

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