presentation_deploy

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 idempotency by version and access, explains that the same version/access returns the existing URL, and reveals the default access (DOMAIN) plus the guidance not to re-confirm unless the user explicitly requests a different level. This goes beyond a general 'deploy' statement, though it does not mention failure modes or permission requirements.

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 compact yet information-dense: two sentences (with a dash) convey the core action, return value, idempotency rule, access default, and interaction guidance. No filler or repeated schema content.

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 deploy tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return value (URL), default behavior, and access logic. It lacks explicit error behavior or a comparison with presentation_get_deployment, but given the schema richness and the description's coverage, it is nearly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: for `access` it clarifies the default is DOMAIN and that no user confirmation is needed unless a different access is requested; for `version` it explains that omission publishes HEAD. These additions elevate the parameter semantics above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Publica una versión (commit) de una presentación como web app de Apps Script y devuelve su URL.' This clearly distinguishes the deploy action from sibling tools like list, create, get, or rollback.

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 provides clear context about when deployment happens (publishing a version) and notes the default access behavior, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or directly name an alternative such as presentation_get_deployment for checking existing deployments. Context is present but exclusions are missing.

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