Create a slideshow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the non-obvious credit-cost model: LLM-written copy plus one generated image per slide, so cost scales with slide count. That is real added value beyond the structured fields, though it omits whether the call is async or how long a 12-slide run takes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the cost warning, then the prerequisite lookups. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

Covers purpose, cost, and prerequisites well, but with no output schema the description never says what the call returns or how to retrieve the finished slideshow (get_slideshow exists as a sibling). For a six-parameter, credit-consuming creation tool, that return-path gap is meaningful.

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% and the schema descriptions already name list_studio_models and list_slideshow_templates as the sources for imageModel/imageTier/setId, so the description's pointers largely restate existing schema text. No extra semantics on brief, slides bounds, or workspaceId beyond what the schema says.

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 (build) and resource (slideshow) plus the scope constraint that it comes from built-in template sets. This clearly separates it from siblings like generate_image, generate_video, and get_slideshow, which produce or fetch different artifacts.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: fetch image model/tier ids from list_studio_models and valid set ids from list_slideshow_templates before calling. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g., vs. generate_image for a single asset), but the prerequisite chain is explicit and actionable.

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