Revise slide

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that only narration whose text changed is re-voiced while the rest keeps its audio, that omitting the heading preserves title/classes/attributes, and that the reply's slide_url plays only the revised slide. These are exactly the side-effect details an agent needs for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

Front-loads the core action and keeps every clause functional (side effects, prerequisites, return behavior). Slightly dense with several packed sentences, but nothing is 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what the reply returns (slide_url) and how to use it, and it covers prerequisites and mutation semantics. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 adds real meaning: the slide id may be a {#id} or a title-derived id, and the markdown param has an optional-heading semantic that preserves existing slide metadata. That is genuine value beyond the schema.

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 ('Replace one slide ... with new Markdown') and scopes it to a single slide, which cleanly separates it from add_slides and start_walkthrough. The identification key ('found by its id') is included up front.

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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions ('a slide a reply reported as broken, or to rework a finished walkthrough') plus the prerequisite workflow (find the handle via list_walkthroughs, read Markdown from the resource URI). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or a when-not condition, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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