slides_insert_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Insert' but does not describe side effects, permissions, reversibility, or behavior on failure. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that both add value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the only parameter clarification provided. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not provide enough context for correct invocation. It lacks guidance on parameter relationships, how to obtain the required IDs, or default behaviors for optional positioning parameters. The minimal annotation coverage means the description must do more to be complete, and it 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?

The description explains only video_id as 'the YouTube video ID', adding semantic value beyond the schema. However, with 7 parameters and 0% schema coverage in the description, the other 6 parameters (presentation_id, slide_id, x_pt, y_pt, width_pt, height_pt) receive no contextual explanation, leaving a significant gap.

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 action ('Insert a YouTube video onto a slide') with a specific resource and object. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like slides_insert_image and slides_insert_table by specifying 'YouTube video'.

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 YouTube video insertion, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks exclusion criteria or mention of sibling tools, though the purpose is clear enough to infer basic usage.

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