createRiskMitigationSlide

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

The description mentions both 'Create or update,' indicating the tool can modify an existing slide via the _index parameter. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose details like whether updates are incremental or destructive, or if there are any side effects.

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 short sentence, making it very concise and easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could contain more useful information without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the slide looks like after creation, how errors are handled, or how this tool differs from its many siblings. The agent would lack critical context for correct invocation.

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?

The schema describes two parameters: 'risks' (array of objects) and '_index' (integer). Schema description coverage is 50%—only _index has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters; it does not explain the risk object structure or how _index controls update vs. append. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 risk register with mitigations,' which clearly indicates the tool's function. The tool name includes 'Slide,' implying it creates a presentation slide, but the description does not explicitly mention 'slide,' which could cause ambiguity. However, the verb 'create/update' and resource 'risk register' are specific enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., createSwotSlide, createPorterFiveForcesSlide). The description lacks any contextual cues or alternatives.

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