create_outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the required environment variables (AIPPT_APP_ID/AIPPT_API_SECRET), which is genuine behavioral context. However, it says nothing about whether the outline is persisted, latency, cost, or failure modes, leaving significant gaps for a creation 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?

Front-loads the purpose then enumerates four compact usage notes; each line earns its place. Slightly listy but no wasted prose.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, workflow linkage (create_ppt_by_outline), the search toggle, and the auth prerequisite. The main missing piece is post-call behavior such as whether the outline is returned inline or stored for later retrieval.

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 all three parameters (text, search, language) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the search toggle's meaning but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (创建PPT大纲) and clarifies it generates an outline from text content, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling create_outline_by_doc. It stops short of explicitly naming that alternative, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 numbered list gives clear context: use when you have text description, the output feeds create_ppt_by_outline, and search toggles web augmentation. It does not state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., vs create_outline_by_doc for document input), but the workflow chaining guidance is strong.

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