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

Annotations already flag a non-readOnly, non-destructive write, and the description usefully adds that the draft is temporary and private, that input is sanitized, that it returns a reviewUrl, and that it leaves the default style untouched. These are substantive behavioral facts beyond the annotations, though permission requirements and draft lifetime are not spelled out.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending on the constraint. No filler, though the middle approval-workflow sentence slightly blurs action versus instruction.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description names the return value (reviewUrl) plus non-effects, which helps. However, for a 6-parameter write tool with zero schema descriptions, it leaves the inputs largely unexplained, so it is only marginally 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% across 6 parameters, and the description only obliquely references 'description and design notes' and an 'example deck'. It supplies no meaning for name, html, format, or aspectRatio, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 states a specific action (sanitize an example deck and create a temporary private review draft) with clear scope, distinguishing it from publish/deletion siblings. It does not name a specific sibling tool, but the negative clause ('does not publish or change the default style') differentiates it from publish_presentation and set/artifact style 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?

It gives a concrete workflow instruction ('Show the returned reviewUrl and details to the owner for approval before saving'), which clearly positions the tool as a pre-save review step, and adds a when-not clause about publishing. No alternative tool is named explicitly, so it stops short of 5.

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