presentation_append

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the stateful nature (chunks are appended), the termination condition (done:true validates and commits), and the post-condition (deck becomes deployable). It does not mention error handling or idempotency, but covers the essential behavior.

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 just two sentences, delivering the full usage protocol without fluff. It is front-loaded with the action 'Agrega un chunk de HTML' and follows with concise instructions for repetition and finalization.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers prerequisites (partial upload), iteration, termination, and post-condition (deployable). It omits edge cases like validation failures, but for a simple append tool this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (id, done, html) already well-documented. The tool description reinforces the workflow but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool appends a chunk of HTML to an ongoing partial upload created by presentation_create({ partial: true }). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like presentation_update (full update) and presentation_create (initial creation).

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 gives clear usage context: it must be used with a partial upload, can be repeated as needed, and the final call should include done:true. It implies when to use but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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