createCostStructureSlide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'create or update' but fails to explain the update mechanism via _index or the implications (e.g., replacing existing content). The lack of detail on creation context and side effects reduces transparency.

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, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and could front-load more key information like the update behavior. It earns points for brevity but loses slightly for being too brief.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide comprehensive context. It fails to explain how the slide is created/updated, what the return value is, or the meaning of 'buckets' and 'fixedVsVariable'. Essential details are missing for an AI to use the tool effectively.

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 only 33% (only _index has a description). The tool description adds no meaningful explanation for parameters like 'buckets' or 'fixedVsVariable'; it only vaguely mentions 'buckets and notes' despite 'notes' not being a parameter. This does not compensate for the schema gaps.

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 'Create or update a cost structure with buckets and notes' which clearly indicates the tool's function. The tool name and sibling tools confirm it's a slide creation tool for cost structures, distinguishing it from other slide types.

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 implies usage for creating or updating a cost structure slide, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. The context of slide creation is clear, but without exclusion criteria or alternatives, score is adequate.

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