Revise slide

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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) but say nothing about side effects; the description adds the non-obvious behavior that only narration whose text changed is re-voiced while the rest keeps its existing audio, plus the partial-update semantics of omitting the heading. That is exactly the kind of cost/cascade information an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then usage and discovery path. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 must carry the burden, and it covers discovery of the handle, id resolution, partial-update rules and audio side effects. It stops short of saying what a successful revision returns (e.g. new revision/version or updated id) or how an unknown slide id fails.

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 semantics on top: omitting the heading preserves the slide's title, classes and attributes, which tells the agent what the optional heading in 'markdown' actually does. The slide-id lookup semantics are already fully documented in 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 precise verb and resource ('Replace one slide ... with new Markdown') and constrains scope to a single slide found by id. It is immediately distinguishable from add_slides, list_walkthroughs and the other siblings.

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 two concrete triggering conditions ('a slide a reply reported as broken', 'rework a finished walkthrough') and routes the agent to the prerequisite tools: find the handle with list_walkthroughs and read the Markdown from showntell://walkthroughs/{id}.

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