Revise a slide

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and potential side effects (openWorldHint: true). The description adds that the revision is natural-language based but does not disclose what exactly gets modified (e.g., does it replace the entire slide or edit parts?) or what side effects occur. The description is adequate but not deep.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word adds value, and the description avoids unnecessary details or repetition of schema fields.

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 4 required parameters, no output schema, and annotations hinting at side effects, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after submission (e.g., returns success? modifies slide in place?), nor does it provide context on the revision process or expected outcomes. This omission could confuse agents.

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 50% (only artifact and notebook have descriptions). The description adds meaning to 'prompt' by calling it natural-language, but does not explain the 'slideIndex' parameter (0-based? range?). With moderate coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves 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 clearly states the verb 'submit' and resource 'revision for one slide of an existing deck', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_slide_deck by focusing on revising an existing slide rather than creating a full deck.

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 slide revisions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., regenerate_slide). It lacks 'when not to use' suggestions or preconditions, though the context is clear enough for basic selection.

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