Batch Update Presentation

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'apply batch updates.' It does not disclose effects, required permissions, or any implications of the destructive nature.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. There is no filler or repetition, making it efficient and appropriately sized.

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?

This is a complex tool with a free-form 'requests' array, yet the description provides no context on what constitutes a valid batch update request or how to construct one. The output schema exists, but the description still needs to explain the input domain sufficiently, which 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. The 'requests' parameter is described generically as 'List of update requests to apply', but no detail is given about valid request types or structure.

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 applies batch updates to a Google Slides presentation, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_presentation or create_presentation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from potential single-update alternatives.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does, without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where other tools (e.g., batch_update_doc, import_to_google_slides) would be more appropriate.

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