generate_presentation

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the asynchronous nature (returns request_id, poll with wait_generation), cost implications (credits), and output structure (pptx_url, pdf_url, preview_urls). No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently covers all major aspects in a single paragraph, though a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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?

For a complex tool with async behavior and credit costs, the description covers creation steps, polling, output formats, and cost. It lacks error handling or edge case details, but overall is thorough.

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 100%, providing baseline. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., 'For illustrations set image.prompt (English)', 'skip images for text-only slides', and layout descriptions) beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Generate a slide presentation (editable PPTX + PDF + PNG previews) from a DeckSpec you compose.' It specifies the outputs and differentiates from sibling tools like generate_image or compose_video.

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 guidance on how to construct the DeckSpec, including required fields, layout options, image handling, and cost. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear.

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