Raw Google Slides API call

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

The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond the annotations: the Bearer token is added automatically, paths resolving to foreign origins are rejected, and Drive endpoints are unreachable. It also notes the API only has GET and POST endpoints. These details help an agent predict consequences when invoking this open-world, potentially destructive tool.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: it establishes the purpose, gives concrete examples, states constraints, and points to alternatives. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 an open-world raw request tool with no output schema, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs: the base URL, authentication behavior, method restrictions, path rules, and explicit boundaries around other API domains. The absence of a return-value explanation is acceptable because the raw response is inherently unpredictable and the tool is designed as an escape hatch.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that the path is relative to https://slides.googleapis.com, may include a query string, and that the body is JSON only for POST. This supplements the schema examples with operational context, though not dramatically.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an escape hatch to call any Google Slides API v1 path directly, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates itself from the typed siblings by explicitly covering requests batch_update doesn't handle and excluding Drive endpoints. An agent can immediately understand what this tool is for and how it differs from other 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: use it when batch_update or typed tools don't cover the request, and use manage_comments or export_presentation for Drive endpoints. It also clarifies that only GET and POST are valid methods. This is direct, actionable routing information.

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