design_slide

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states it 'designs' a slide. It does not clarify if existing content is overwritten or merged, what permissions are needed, or any side effects, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence (15 words) that front-loads the core purpose. It could be more structured with separate aspects, but it is efficient and without waste.

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 14 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It fails to explain the automatic layout algorithm, the effect of multiple content fields, or the return value, leaving agents underinformed for correct invocation.

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 parameters. The description adds marginal context like 'automatic layout' and 'optional brand settings', but does not deepen meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline 3.

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 tool designs a complete slide with automatic layout, typography, and color, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_slide_title or design_deck by focusing on a single slide's comprehensive design.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like design_deck (for entire deck) or design_from_template. The description does not include any when/when-not or prerequisite context.

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