Export the presentation

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the 10MB export cap, the required Drive scope, the returned fields (saved_to, bytes, mime_type), and that nothing in the presentation changes. The local-file overwrite is disclosed, while destructiveHint=false remains consistent with the source resource, so no annotation contradiction exists.

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 three sentences with no filler: the first sentence states the core action, the second covers limits and failure handling, and the third covers auth and return contract. Each sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent gets back (saved_to, bytes, mime_type) and the side effects (file written, presentation unchanged). Combined with the detailed schema and annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that txt means all text including speaker notes, and it confirms the overwrite behavior on output_path. This extra meaning justifies a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Downloads ... and saves it to output_path'), names the resource (the whole presentation), and lists all supported formats. This clearly identifies export_presentation as the file-export tool among the siblings, which otherwise perform edits, reads, or raw requests.

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 explicitly states when the tool fails (decks over 10MB) and offers the alternative of splitting the deck or using the Slides UI. It also gives an OAuth prerequisite and its failure mode (403 with presentations-only scope). This is actionable routing guidance.

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