convert_html

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden yet discloses very little. It doesn't say whether the conversion is lossy (the lossy_fixes param suggests it is), how font embedding behaves, what happens if the HTML violates the contract, or whether output_path is overwritten.

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 tight sentence with the action and the output destination front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though there is also very little substance.

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?

An output schema covers return values, but for an unannotated file-writing tool with 6 undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin. Critical context about the HTML contract, lossy conversion, and font handling is missing.

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 0% across 6 parameters, and the description only names output_path. The non-obvious parameters — lossy_fixes ('apply'), font_strategy ('auto'), embed_fonts, base_dir — receive no explanation anywhere, leaving the agent unable to choose values correctly.

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 and resource pair: compile restricted HTML into a native editable .pptx and write it to output_path. The word 'restricted' hints at a contract, but the description never distinguishes this from validate_html or get_contract, which are the obvious siblings in the pipeline.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the validate_html / get_contract siblings that clearly gate this conversion. An agent must infer that HTML should be validated first and that 'restricted' refers to a contract.

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