keynote_set_font

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that omitted fields are left unchanged, a key behavioral trait, but does not detail error handling or validate permissions/effects beyond that. Partial update behavior is well communicated.

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, no filler. First sentence defines the action and partial update; second sentence suggests a use case. Every sentence is purposeful and concise.

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 7 parameters (3 required, no output schema), the description covers the essential action, the partial update nature, and a use case. It could elaborate on return values or error states, but for a simple mutation tool, it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by summarizing the three font-related parameters and explicitly stating the partial update behavior ('Any omitted fields are left unchanged'), which is not fully clear from the schema alone.

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 'Set font family, size, and/or color on a text element,' specifying the verb, resource, and what can be set. It distinguishes from siblings like keynote_set_text (which sets content) and keynote_set_element_fill_color (fill).

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 provides usage context with 'Use this to enforce typographic consistency across slides,' but does not explicitly exclude cases or name alternatives for when not to use it. It gives a clear context without deep guidance.

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