ppt_create_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the PDF is read from local disk by this MCP server and uploaded to the running PPT API. It also highlights the safety requirement (explicit user override). However, it does not cover side effects, job persistence, or error behavior, so it is not fully transparent. Still, it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond basic mutation.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line purpose, a concise process explanation, a clear recommendation for alternatives, and a strong safety warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical info (when to use) is front-loaded.

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 tool has an output schema (which presumably explains return values) and is a low-level job creation operation. The description covers the process, prerequisites, and safety constraint. However, it doesn't mention what a 'job' is or describe any lifecycle behaviors. Given the output schema, the description is mostly complete but could add a bit more context about job semantics.

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% (no parameter descriptions). The description compensates for pdf_path (must be a real existing local PDF path) and low_level_override_confirmed (must be confirmed), but it does not explain the 'options' parameter at all. With three parameters and no schema descriptions, partial coverage merits a 3.

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 tool's function: 'Create a PDF-to-PPT conversion job from a local pdf_path.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by labeling itself as a 'low-level escape hatch' and contrasting with the normal guided workflow (ppt_convert_pdf). This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 explicit usage guidance: it says to prefer the guided route workflow (listing exact steps) and explicitly states 'Never use this tool unless the user explicitly asks to bypass the guided route workflow and confirms low_level_override_confirmed=true.' This is a clear when/when-not with named alternatives.

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