gamma_generate_from_template

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. Discloses layout preservation, content generation, single-page template requirement, and limits (max 10 folder IDs). Does not mention auth or rate limits, but covers core behavioral traits.

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?

Concise and well-organized. One sentence summary, endpoint reference, usage guidance, then parameter block. No redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and presence of output schema (not shown but sufficient), description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameter docs, and behavioral constraints. References sibling tool for shared parameter shapes. Complete and self-contained.

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 has 0% description coverage; description compensates fully. Each parameter gets a meaningful description: prompt length constraint, gamma_id required, theme_id optional, image_options/sharing_options reference to sibling tool, folder_ids cap, export_as enum values. Adds crucial context beyond schema types.

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?

Clear verb-resource pairing: 'Generate a variant from an existing Gamma template with swapped content.' Specifies the endpoint and constraint (template must have exactly one page). Distinguishes from sibling gamma_generate by focusing on template reuse.

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?

Provides ideal use cases: 'batch content with consistent branding' with examples. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but context implies contrast with gamma_generate for scratch generation.

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