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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the link is public with no account required, is full-screen in-browser, always serves the latest version, and that revoking invalidates the URL. It omits caller-side authorization requirements and whether re-sharing overwrites prior settings, which are meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 core action and audience model are front-loaded in the first clause, with options and return values following. The long parenthetical is dense but every clause adds information; nothing is redundant filler.

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 4-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers visibility semantics, the revoke path, and return contents (URL, views, unique visitors, average time, per-slide reach). Only authorization requirements and update-vs-create idempotency behavior are left unstated.

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 75%, and the schema already documents revoke, password, and allow_download in detail, including null/omit semantics. The description restates those options (password, PPTX/PDF download, revoke) without adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so it sits at the baseline for a well-described 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?

States a specific verb pair (create/update) on a specific resource (the public online-presentation link) scoped to a finished deck, and notes the revoke variant. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_presentation or get_presentation, which produce or retrieve decks rather than manage a shareable link.

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 'finished deck' qualifier establishes a precondition, and the mention of revoke plus optional password/download frames the main usage modes. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer this over a sibling (e.g. re-sharing vs. creating a new presentation), so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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