update_deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the declarative nature of the slides parameter, including that omitted ids are removed and new ids are appended. It also specifies the return value (deck id and present URL). This goes beyond a simple 'update' to reveal non-obvious behavior, though it could mention permissions or side effects.

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 two sentences: first sentence states purpose, second explains the critical slides behavior and return value. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the core update functionality and slides behavior, but lacks details on error conditions (e.g., missing deck, invalid diagram IDs), prerequisites, or what happens to omitted fields for title/description. Given no output schema and 4 parameters, more context would improve completeness.

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%, but the description adds significant value for the slides parameter by explaining the declarative semantics (reorder, add, remove via full list). For other parameters, the schema descriptions are sufficient. The extra context raises the score above baseline.

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 verb 'update' and resource 'deck', specifying the aspects that can be modified (title, description, slide order). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_deck and get_deck by focusing on mutation of an existing deck, and the declarative slides behavior is explicitly highlighted.

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 some usage guidance for the slides parameter (declarative approach) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_deck or update_diagram). It lacks context on prerequisites or when not to use this tool.

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