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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the deck starts empty, and the supplied `request` is used by Deckly to check slide figures and is surfaced in the document chat. It does not say what identifier comes back or whether the creation can be undone.

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 tight sentences: the action and its scope come first, then the parameter guidance. Every clause carries information, and the colons correctly introduce the consequences of the `request` 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?

For a creation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers intent and the request field but says nothing about the return value (a deck or document identifier) that the downstream deck_* tools presumably require. A one-line note on what the caller receives would close the remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does explain `request` in depth: verbatim user wording, facts/figures/names, and the two downstream uses (figure verification and chat display). `title` is never mentioned, though it is the sole required parameter and its meaning is self-evident from the name.

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 ('Make an empty presentation') plus the scope ('in the person's Deckly account', 'designed with the deck tools'). The parenthetical '(no Deckly agent involved)' distinguishes it from agent-driven creation, and 'presentation' separates it from the landing/ads starters in the sibling list.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the entry point before the deck_* tools, and that it is not the agent-driven path. There is no explicit when-to-use framing against siblings like start_landing, start_ads, or open_work, and no prerequisites spelled out.

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