copy_presentation

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

The description discloses overwrite refusal, the backup rotation behavior into .ks4p-backups, undoability via manage_backups, and the guarantee that the source file is never modified. These details go far beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation and describe important side effects.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose, the key alternative, and all critical behavioral caveats without fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary information.

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?

The description covers purpose, routing, overwrite semantics, backup/undo behavior, and source safety. With an output schema present, no return-value detail is needed; an agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains dest_path and overwrite behavior explicitly, and file_path is inferable as the source deck. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it copies a deck byte-for-byte and immediately contrasts with create_snapshot, which names a DTG-stamped copy. This makes the tool's purpose and distinction from its sibling obvious.

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?

It gives an explicit use case ('before heavy edits') and names the alternative tool (create_snapshot) with the criterion for choosing this one: an explicit dest_path rather than an auto-generated stamp. This is clear routing guidance.

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