create_presentation

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

Annotation Contradiction: The description explicitly states the tool 'overwrites any file already there,' which is a destructive side effect on the output path, yet annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This creates conflicting signals for the agent about whether an existing file may be lost. The overwrite warning is transparent, but the annotation contradicts it, so the score must drop to 1 per the rubric.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second exposes the overwrite side effect, and the third names the sibling alternative. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 is largely complete: it names the tool's purpose, enumerates the supported slide components, discloses the overwrite behavior, and points to the alternative for editing. It does not describe the return value, but the context indicates an output schema exists. The only true gap is the annotation contradiction, which is addressed separately; otherwise, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the 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 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters and nested slide structures. The description adds general context about output_path and the kinds of slide content supported, but it does not clarify ambiguous schema details such as the generic ToolOptions block (which references compare_documents actions unrelated to presentation creation). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-semantic burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a NEW PowerPoint deck') and enumerates the supported slide components (layout, title, bullets, positioned text boxes, tables, charts, pictures, notes, transitions). It explicitly distinguishes itself from edit_presentation by saying it creates from scratch rather than changing an existing deck slide by slide.

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 gives a clear condition for use: create a new .pptx from typed slide specs. It explicitly routes to a sibling tool: 'To change an existing deck slide by slide instead, use edit_presentation.' This gives the agent a direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule.

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