create_slides

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral details: the mode behavior (full HTML vs JSON), the requirement for prior steps, and the post-call action (show htmlPath, stop, ask confirmation). It also warns against prematurely calling render_slides. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with important information front-loaded and emphasized (IMPORTANT, REQUIRES, MUST, STOP, DO NOT). However, it is slightly verbose, repeating some points (e.g., mode guidance appears twice). A more concise version could remove redundancy while retaining 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, multiple prerequisites, conditional modes), the description covers workflow, mode selection, and post-call actions. It lacks an explicit statement of the return value (htmlPath is mentioned but not as a return field). Error conditions and responses are not addressed. Still, it provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning beyond schema for mode (explaining quality trade-off) and implies conditions for html and slides. However, themes, orientation, width, height, and brandName are not elaborated beyond the schema. The description does not significantly increase understanding of parameter semantics.

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 starts with 'Create slides,' clearly indicating the action and resource. It further details mode options and prerequisites, distinguishing it from siblings like discover_themes and render_slides. However, it could be more explicit about what 'create slides' entails (generating HTML slides) and differentiate from edit_slides.

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 excellent usage guidance: it specifies when to use each mode (default vs token_saver), mandates that discover_themes must be called first and the user must confirm the data outline, and strictly instructs not to call render_slides until user confirmation. This clearly separates this tool from its siblings.

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