apply_slide_template

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

With no readOnly/destructive annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does state that the tool modifies slide layout and content structure. It also notes that presentation_id falls back to the current presentation when None. It does not disclose whether existing content is overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or how content_mapping interacts with template placeholder roles.

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 purpose is front-loaded, the mutation effect is stated clearly, and the Args block is terse without filler. Every line adds information the schema does not provide.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no behavioral annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition provides enough parameter-level detail to call the tool correctly. It could be even more complete by pointing to list_slide_templates for valid template IDs or describing how template roles map to content_mapping, but the current text is still largely sufficient.

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 compensates fully by explaining all six parameters. It adds concrete examples for template_id and color_scheme, clarifies that content_mapping and image_paths map roles to content/file paths, and explains the None-default behavior for presentation_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 opens with a specific action and resource: apply a structured layout template to an existing slide. It also explains that the operation modifies slide layout and content structure, which distinguishes it from slide-creation tools such as create_slide_from_template or create_presentation_from_template.

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 phrase 'to an existing slide' implies the intended use case: modifying an already-created slide rather than creating one. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over apply_professional_design or list_slide_templates, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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