document_intelligence_create_slide_deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the creation lifecycle, whether the action is synchronous or asynchronous, any side effects, or what the output schema contains. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 four sentences: stating the action, routing context, and two parameter descriptions. It is concise and front-loaded. Each sentence contributes value, though the structure could be improved with clearer separation of concerns.

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 complexity (creating a slide deck via a domain agent) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about output, prerequisites, expected behavior, and differentiation from similar sibling tools. The output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This adds basic meaning beyond the schema, but it does not describe expected JSON structure, constraints, or examples. For a creation tool, more detailed parameter semantics are needed.

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 that the tool creates a slide deck by running a domain agent action. It mentions the action name and the dispatching context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_document or create_report, and the output type is not clarified beyond 'slide deck'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other document intelligence creation tools). There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no mention of prerequisites or context for optimal use.

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