copy_presentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the copy preserves styling, masters, layouts, theme, and color scheme, and notes it's one call. However, it does not disclose potential issues like authorization needs or error handling for invalid source_id.

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: a brief summary, contextual explanation, and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (context confirms), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and usage scenario for a copy operation. It explains the high-fidelity template workflow, making it complete for agent selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning via the Args section, explaining source_id as the template ID, title as the new copy's title, and parent_folder_id as optional folder placement. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 clones an entire deck using Drive files.copy, preserving full styling. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_presentation by specifying it's for copying an existing deck with high fidelity.

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 context as the starting point of a template workflow and explains the benefit of editing the copy like the showcase. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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