Add a screenshot image

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety bar is largely met. The description adds genuinely useful constraints beyond that: the file must live in Downloads/Desktop/Documents, and the target is a single device/locale slot with 'main' shared across locales. It doesn't say what happens when an image already exists on that slide/device, which is the main remaining gap.

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, zero filler. The format and source-folder constraint come first, the correct-usage rule second, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema but strong annotation coverage, the description supplies the file-source rule, device/locale placement model, and input format. What's missing is conflict behavior — whether re-adding to the same slide/device replaces or errors — which mildly matters given idempotentHint=true.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining locale semantics the schema only hints at — 'default main, which every locale shares' — and by tying device to a single-slot placement. It adds little beyond the schema for path, slideId, or projectId, but those are already well documented.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Put a PNG or JPEG ... on a slide') with tight scope: one device, one locale, default locale 'main'. The closing clause 'Use the raw app screenshot ... not a finished store image' functionally separates it from store-image import tools in the sibling list (e.g. screenshots_import_store).

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?

Gives a clear positive condition (raw screenshot captured on that device) and an implicit exclusion (not a finished store image), plus the default-locale rule. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as screenshots_upload or screenshots_import_store for those other cases, so routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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