Patch Deck

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description adds real value by spelling out the concrete consequence — changing visibility can make the deck public or strip other people's access. It does not mention the share-manage permission requirement, which lives only in the schema, but the material risk is disclosed in prose.

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, front-loaded with the primary operations before the caveats. The middle sentence about switching content version could have been folded into the opening list, but there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With annotations covering safety, a rich schema, and an output schema to describe returns, the description only needs to establish scope and risk. It does both: it enumerates all four patchable dimensions and warns about the visibility side effect, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling it.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description names every optional parameter's effect at a high level (rename, visibility, project move, version switch) but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already states, such as the constraint that version must be one the deck has content for.

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 leads with specific verbs and the resource: rename a deck, change who can open it, move it to another project, and switch the rendered content version. It distinguishes itself from create_presentation and get_export through explicit negatives ('doesn't start generation or create an export'), though it never clarifies its boundary against the sibling share_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?

Usage is implied by the operation list plus the exclusions ('doesn't start generation or create an export'), which tells the agent what this tool is not for. However, no alternative is named for the overlapping case — an agent wanting to grant access could plausibly pick either this tool or share_deck, and the description offers no rule to choose.

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