set_slide_title

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Set the title text' implying a mutation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether changes are immediate or require saving, error conditions, or what 'Status of the operation' entails. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a write operation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with three straightforward parameters.

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's moderate complexity (mutation with 3 params), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema handles return values, so the description's 'Status of the operation' is sufficient, but overall completeness is limited.

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?

The description explicitly lists all three parameters with brief explanations ('ID of the presentation', 'ID of the slide (numeric string)', 'New title text'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% coverage. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints beyond 'numeric string' for slide_id.

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 action ('Set the title text') and resource ('of a slide'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_text' by specifying it's for slide titles specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_text' or 'add_text_box'. It mentions required parameters but doesn't indicate prerequisites (e.g., needing an open presentation) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter names alone.

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