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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add context. It usefully discloses the state change: the deck becomes active and is rewound to slide 1, which explains the idempotency and the mutation. It does not state error behavior or what happens if the slug is invalid, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct role: use case, mechanism/state change, then dependency note. Front-loaded with purpose and free of filler. Slightly more sentence overhead than strictly needed but nothing wasteful.

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 one-parameter activation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the resulting active-presentation state, and which sibling tools depend on it. Missing edge-case behavior (unknown slug, auth) keeps it from being fully 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% and the single 'slug' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. 'Makes a deck the active presentation' only weakly implies that slug identifies the target deck. With just one parameter and an otherwise self-evident identifier name, this is a modest gap rather than a severe one.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Makes a deck the active presentation and rewinds it to slide 1 in the present phase'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that ask, goto_slide, next_slide and previous_slide operate on the presentation it activates. An agent can tell this is the 'activate' tool apart from the navigation tools.

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?

Opens with clear context – 'For rehearsing or presenting a talk, and for practising Q&A with ask' – telling the agent when this tool is appropriate. It names the downstream tools but does not give explicit exclusions or a when-not-to-use condition; there is arguably no alternative tool for activation, so this is a minor gap.

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