Create a new slide presentation (slides, powerpoint, deck, keynote). Use this when asked to create a presentation, slide deck, or slideshow. Each slide has "html" content and optional "background" and "notes".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Array of slide objects | |
| theme | No | Theme name (default "default") | |
| title | Yes | Presentation title | |
| server_id | No | Server ID | |
| aspectRatio | No | Aspect ratio (default "16:9") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions slide structure (html, background, notes), but this repeats schema information and does not address side effects, prerequisites, or return values. For a create operation, more context about what happens after creation would be valuable.
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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage. There is minor redundancy between the synonym lists in the first two sentences, but overall it is efficiently structured.
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?
With five parameters and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and usage but does not explain how parameters like server_id, theme, or aspectRatio affect execution, nor what response to expect. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps.
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% with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond repeating the slide object fields already documented in the schema.
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 explicitly states 'Create a new slide presentation' and includes synonyms (slides, powerpoint, deck, keynote), clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like append_slides and update_slide_presentation by focusing on creation.
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 clear guidance with 'Use this when asked to create a presentation, slide deck, or slideshow,' indicating appropriate use cases. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'create' framing contrasts with sibling operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: document, sheet, tab, or presentation. Even similar operations like append_rows, append_slides, and append_to_document are clearly differentiated by their intended target.
The naming follows a predictable verb_noun pattern with create_, get_, list_, update_, delete_, and append_. Minor deviations like append_to_document (uses 'to') and the use of 'slide_presentation' vs 'slides' keep it from being perfectly uniform.
At 23 tools, the count is slightly above the ideal range, but each tool serves a clear purpose across three resource types (documents, sheets, slides). The volume is justified by supporting tab-level operations and append functionality.
The server provides full CRUD plus listing for each resource type, along with tab management and append operations. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of a direct 'set cell value' operation and no slide reorder or delete individual slide, but core workflows are well covered.