create_slideshow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful behavioral traits: no AI generation, ~10 second render time, conditional video export behavior ('Only applies when export_as_video is true'), and overlay behavior. However, it does not mention the return format, authentication requirements, or any side effects beyond creation/rendering.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief behavioral note, then a compact parameter list with defaults and conditions. Every line adds value and no filler is present.

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 10 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete for invoking the tool. It explains all parameter semantics and conditions. The main gap is not describing what the tool returns (e.g., a slideshow ID or rendered asset URLs), which would be useful for the agent to handle the result.

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 0%, so the description's parameter list adds substantial meaning: defaults, allowed values, conditional behavior, and per-slide structure. It covers all 10 parameters, though the slides parameter is only partially explained with 'etc.', leaving the nested slide schema somewhat vague.

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 states the tool creates a slideshow with full manual control, and explicitly distinguishes itself from AI generation ('No AI generation'), which separates it from the sibling generate_slideshow. The verb+resource and scope are specific.

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 implies the right use case ('full manual control') and excludes AI generation ('No AI generation — renders in ~10 seconds'). It gives clear context but does not explicitly name the alternative tool (generate_slideshow) or state explicit 'use when / don't use when' instructions.

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