create_slide_deck

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions creation of a presentation but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, output behavior, or whether the action is irreversible. The output schema exists, which partially mitigates the need to describe return values, but behavioral traits like mutation and storage implications are assumed.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. The purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a clean bullet-like list of parameters with explanations. Every sentence is necessary; no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the description lacks context about when to choose this tool over similar slide creation tools, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or any constraints. For a simple creation tool with few parameters, it is minimally adequate but could be more informative.

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 add meaning. It does so by providing concise explanations for each parameter: title ('Presentation title'), body ('Optional content description or outline'), and target_suite with enumerated storage options. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema which only has type and default.

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 purpose: 'Create a new presentation / slide deck.' It includes a specific verb ('create') and resource ('presentation/slide deck'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'document_intelligence_create_slide_deck' or other document creation tools, though the target_suite parameter provides some distinction.

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 some usage guidance by listing parameter meanings and three options for target_suite. However, it lacks explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., document_intelligence_create_slide_deck) or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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