create_ppt_by_outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the async contract (returns sid), the required downstream polling step, where the download URL surfaces, and an authentication prerequisite (AIPPT_APP_ID / AIPPT_API_SECRET). Failure modes, timeouts, and rate limits are not covered, keeping it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the core action before the numbered usage steps, and each step earns its place by advancing the workflow. Slight redundancy with the schema descriptions in points 2 and 3 keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 8-parameter async tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the sid/polling/download flow. What remains missing is how the tool relates to the other creation siblings, but the operational picture is essentially complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description only restates the outline/template_id sourcing that the schema descriptions already contain, adding no new semantic detail (e.g. acceptable outline shapes or default behavior). 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 based on 大纲) and notes the direct-creation variant that bypasses an API bug. It references the sibling tools for prerequisites, but never explicitly contrasts itself with create_ppt_task or create_full_ppt_workflow, so an agent can't fully disambiguate the creation siblings from the description alone.

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?

Gives a clear numbered workflow: use it only after an outline exists, obtain template_id via get_theme_list, then poll with get_task_progress. This is strong context, but it never states when a different creation tool (e.g. create_full_ppt_workflow) would be the better choice.

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