Modify a presentation's metadata to change its title or toggle dark mode. For slide content, use update_slide.
Update a presentation's metadata. Use update_slide for slide content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The presentation ID | |
| title | No | New title | |
| darkMode | No | Set to true for dark theme, false for light theme |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool updates metadata but does not disclose permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved, side effects, reversibility, or any response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a notable gap.
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 two short sentences with no wasted words. Its purpose is front-loaded and the sibling-routing sentence follows directly, making it easy to scan.
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?
The schema is fully documented, the parameter count is small, and the description clearly separates metadata updates from slide edits. The remaining gap is behavioral detail around the mutation, but for a simple metadata update the definition is close to 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema clearly documents id, title, and darkMode. The description adds only the general category 'metadata' and does not provide additional parameter semantics or examples beyond what the schema already contains. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource: updating a presentation's metadata. It also distinguishes this tool from the closest sibling, update_slide, by explicitly routing slide content elsewhere. An agent can tell that title and darkMode belong here, while slide edits belong in update_slide.
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 gives a clear usage boundary by naming update_slide for slide content. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus presentation-level siblings such as move_presentation or delete_presentation. The guidance is sufficient for the main ambiguity but not fully exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.