Set Speaker Notes

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

With annotations providing only a title, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the destructive nature of replacing existing notes and the active-presentation default. However, it does not mention error behavior, persistence, or side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence followed by an Args/Returns breakdown. No words are wasted, and the key overwrite behavior 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 simple setter, the description adequately covers the parameters, the replacement behavior, and the return type ('JSON confirmation'). It omits error handling and the exact confirmation shape, but given the tool's low complexity and lack of output schema, the information is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. The Args section explains all three parameters with meaningful context: presentation (None = active), slide_index (1-based), and text (new notes). This adds significant value beyond the minimal schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('speaker notes for a slide'), and clarifies that it replaces existing notes. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_speaker_notes.

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 implies it is used for writing speaker notes and explains that presentation defaults to the active presentation. However, it does not explicitly name the read alternative (get_speaker_notes) or state when not to use it, so the usage context is only implied.

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