createValueChainSlide

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'create or update' but does not explain what 'update' implies (e.g., whether it modifies an existing slide collection, replaces content, or merges). No side effects, permissions, or constraints are mentioned, leaving the agent to 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?

The description is concise at 9 words, but it sacrifices completeness. It front-loads the core purpose but omits critical details about parameters and behavior. A slightly longer description with structured information would improve utility without losing brevity.

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's complexity (3 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to construct the primary and support arrays, what the output slide looks like, or how the update logic works. The context signals indicate low schema coverage and no output schema, so the description should fill these gaps but does not.

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' is documented). The description adds no meaning for 'primary' or 'support' beyond their types (array of strings). It fails to explain what values they should contain (e.g., activity names, descriptions) or their role in the value chain, despite the tool name hinting at primary and support activities.

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 clearly specifies the verb ('create or update') and resource ('value chain with primary and support activities'), matching the tool's name. It distinguishes this tool from siblings that create other slide types (e.g., createSwotSlide, createAgendaSlide), though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or context. The sibling list of 80+ tools underscores the need for guidance, but none is given.

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