Create a presentation

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful side effects: a file is created in the authorized user's Drive, the deck starts with one title slide, and the return payload includes presentationId, revisionId, pageSize, and object ids. It also reveals a limitation: this server cannot delete a presentation. These details add substantial behavioral context and do not contradict the 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return value, then adds only high-value operational caveats. Every sentence earns its place, including the sibling-tool routing and the deletion limitation, with no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (presentationId, revisionId, pageSize, initial title slide with object ids, layouts, masters). It also covers initial deck state, ownership, and deletion limitations, making the tool fully understandable for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% and the single title parameter is already described as 'The presentation title (also the Drive file name).' The tool description adds the contextual note that only the title is honored at creation, but it does not provide additional parameter-level format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already gives.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new Google Slides presentation and returns it.' It also clearly differentiates this tool from content-editing siblings by stating that slides and content must be added with add_slide and the text/shape/table/image 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?

The description explicitly states what this tool is for and what it is not for: it honors only the title at creation, so agents should use add_slide for slides and dedicated content tools for content. It also clarifies that deletion is a Drive operation outside this server's scope, giving concrete when-not-to-use guidance.

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