slide_deck_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that user approval is required (confirm parameter), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention other important behaviors like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose and key requirement. However, the parameter documentation uses a separate 'Args:' section which breaks flow. Some sentences could be more concise, like 'Must be True after user approval' could be simplified to 'Set to True after user approval.'

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, generation operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good coverage. It explains all parameters meaningfully and includes the critical user approval requirement. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a generation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context about what 'generate' entails.

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 provides meaningful semantic information for all 7 parameters: notebook_id context (Notebook UUID), source_ids meaning (Source IDs with default behavior), format options (detailed_deck|presenter_slides), length options (short|default), language specification (BCP-47 code with examples), focus_prompt purpose (Optional focus text), and confirm requirement (Must be True after user approval). This significantly enhances understanding 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 the tool's purpose: 'Generate slide deck' specifies both the verb (generate) and resource (slide deck). It distinguishes from siblings like 'infographic_create' or 'report_create' by focusing on slide decks specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'presentation' tools that might exist elsewhere.

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 clear context with 'Requires confirm=True after user approval' which indicates when to use this tool (after user approval). It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, but the approval requirement provides meaningful guidance.

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