revise_slide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most non-obvious behavior: the call is asynchronous and returns on acceptance, so the caller must poll list_content rather than expect the final slide. It does not say whether the prior slide content is destroyed, what permissions are required, or what happens on an out-of-range index.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose and the 'instead of regenerating' distinction front-loaded and the polling caveat last. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a five-parameter mutation tool the description covers purpose, scope, indexing convention, and the async result path; an output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. Gaps remain around irreversibility of the slide edit and validation behavior for an invalid slide_index.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the zero-based indexing of slide_index — the description's note that slide_index is zero-based merely restates the schema. No additional parameter meaning (e.g. artifact_id vs notebook_id interplay) is added beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Specific verb (revise) plus a precisely scoped resource (one slide of an existing deck, not the whole deck). The 'instead of regenerating the whole deck' clause separates it from deck-level generation siblings such as content_generate.

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 a clear selection rule — use this when only a single slide needs changing rather than regenerating everything — and adds the follow-up instruction to poll list_content. It stops short of naming the exact sibling tool to use for full regeneration, but the context is unambiguous.

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