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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds only 'privacy-filtered project metadata,' leaving unexplained what the build actually mutates, whether it is async/long-running, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure. No annotation contradiction, but little value beyond the structured hints.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise. However, the front-loaded clause is garbled ('hosted start presentation build') and the verb conflicts with the tool name, so the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

This is a mutation with 8 parameters (including nested details, version concurrency control, and an idempotency key) and no output schema. The description says nothing about the build lifecycle, return values, version-conflict recovery, or the required identifier set, leaving significant gaps for an agent to close.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and several schema descriptions are clearly copy-pasted ('Owned project ID...' reused for requestId, sessionId, executionId, presentationId), which the description does not correct.

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 restates the tool name with a conflicting verb: the name says 'start_presentation_build' while the text says 'Update hosted start presentation build.' It never explains what a presentation build is, what state change 'update' produces, or how this differs from siblings such as create_presentation_request, presentation_write, or store_presentation_asset.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent is given no signal for choosing this over presentation_write or create_presentation_request, which appear to operate on overlapping presentation resources.

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