apply_theme

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly indicates the tool modifies the document ('changes the document theme, updating master slides and default styling') but does not mention whether changes are reversible, or whether all slides are affected. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, minimal words (14 total), front-loaded with the core action. Every word is necessary. No redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does and what it changes. It could hint that the theme must exist (listable via 'list_themes') but overall is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% (the only parameter has a description). The description adds concrete examples ('e.g. 'White', 'Black', 'Gradient'') which helps the agent understand valid values beyond the schema. This adds meaningful value.

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 uses a specific verb ('applies') and resource ('theme to current Keynote presentation'), clearly stating the action and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_themes' or 'change_slide_master' by explicitly mentioning applying to the entire presentation.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., presentation must be open), or exclusions. With siblings like 'change_slide_master', some context on when to choose this over that would help.

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