presentation_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It states the tool does not publish (deploy is Phase 2), returns id and version (commit SHA), and describes partial mode behavior (reserves id, stores first chunk, no commit until append with done:true). This is substantial, though it omits edge cases like duplicate titles or error handling.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, then immediately provides alternative guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description states return values (id and version), covers the no-deploy behavior, and gives alternative usage. It is sufficiently complete for a complex tool (partial mode, versioning) but could mention potential conflicts or prerequisites. Overall, it provides a solid mental model.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little new parameter meaning; it references the schema for partial details and gives usage context, but does not explain title, tags, or owner beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose: 'Crea una presentación HTML y la guarda versionada en el store.' It uses a specific verb (creates) and resource (HTML presentation), and immediately differentiates from siblings by mentioning presentation_create_from_file and presentation_append, plus the non-deploy constraint.

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 explicit when-to-use vs alternatives: if HTML exists on disk, use presentation_create_from_file; if generating large HTML, use partial:true and follow with presentation_append. It also clarifies this tool does not deploy. This is strong, actionable guidance.

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