Create a PowerPoint deck

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

Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries the burden and does it well: it discloses that new slides are APPENDED after template slides, that the template must contain at least one slide, that output is self-certified against the same OOXML checklist as pptx_validate, and that the result is returned as a base64 resource plus a summary. This is far beyond what the annotations or schema convey.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, template mode, append behavior, template requirement, default-theme fallback, self-certification, and return format are all covered without filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into mode details.

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, the description covers the most important operational context: template cloning, append semantics, validation, and output shape. It also points to pptx_list_layouts for the archetype catalog, which compensates for not enumerating archetypes. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and explicit call-to-action sequencing, but the output schema and rich parameter schema cover much of the remaining detail.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial semantic value: it explains that template mode clones stencil slides and inherits masters, layout, theme and branding; it clarifies stencilSlideIndex's role; and it explains what happens when template is omitted. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build a .pptx from a declarative list of slides.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings by referencing pptx_list_layouts for the archetype catalog and by describing the create/append behavior rather than validation or repair.

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 for when to use each mode: bring-your-own-template vs. omitting template for a fresh default deck. It also routes the agent to pptx_list_layouts for the archetype catalog and ties validation back to pptx_validate's checklist. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus audit/repair, but those are clearly distinct operations.

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