create_presentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds the behavioral detail of returning a presentation ID for later use, which is valuable. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, permissions, persistence, or error handling, leaving gaps for a creation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It clearly states the core action and follows with the key return-value usage instruction.

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 simple creation tool with a fully documented schema and clear sibling relationships, the description is sufficient. It explains the returned ID and how to use it in subsequent operations. Lacking annotations, it doesn't cover edge cases or authorization, so it's not a 5.

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%, so each parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'create' with a clear resource 'PowerPoint presentation', distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_slide or delete_presentation. It also mentions the return value, which further clarifies its role.

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 phrase 'should be used for all subsequent operations' clearly implies this is the initial step for working with presentations, providing contextual guidance. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling list makes the tool's entry-point role obvious.

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