edit_presentation

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: rewriting the deck and in-place overwrite when output_path is omitted. It also discloses the mitigation (output_path or backup option), which goes well beyond the structured annotation and is vital for safe invocation.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, lists operations efficiently, then delivers the critical overwrite warning and sibling pointer. 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 covers the most important context for a mutation tool: the destructive overwrite behavior and how to prevent it. Since an output schema exists and the input schema documents the per-operation fields, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call 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 baseline is 3. The description lists the operation names but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the schema itself documents per-action field mapping in the PptEditOp description. Therefore the description neither compensates nor degrades parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Edit an existing .pptx with typed operations' and enumerates the exact supported operations. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create_presentation by explicitly saying 'To generate a new deck use create_presentation', so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool (editing an existing .pptx) and names the alternative for new decks: 'To generate a new deck use create_presentation'. It also gives essential usage guidance around output_path and the backup option, telling the agent to pass output_path or options {'backup': true} to avoid overwriting the input file.

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