create_ppt_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is asynchronous, returns a task ID (sid), requires polling, and depends on AIPPT_APP_ID/AIPPT_API_SECRET environment variables being set. It omits failure modes, timeouts, or rate limits, but the core async contract is explained.

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?

A single front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a numbered prerequisite/workflow list; every item earns its place by covering a step the agent would otherwise miss. Slightly long, but nothing is redundant.

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 and 7 parameters, the description supplies the async lifecycle (sid, polling, download URL) and the auth prerequisite, which are exactly the gaps structured fields cannot cover. It stops short of describing error behavior or text-format expectations.

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 schema already documents every parameter including defaults and the ai_image/is_figure dependency. The description only reinforces that template_id comes from get_theme_list, adding little beyond structured data, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (创建PPT生成任务) and clearly frames it as a task-creation step. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like create_ppt_by_outline or create_full_ppt_workflow, leaving the agent to infer which entry point fits, but the noun itself is unambiguous.

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 gives concrete sequencing: call get_theme_list first to obtain a valid template_id, then poll with get_task_progress, then fetch the download URL from the progress result. That is strong context for invoking it correctly, though it never states when to prefer this tool over the outline-based or full-workflow alternatives.

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