PowerPoint Translator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions translation and optional polishing but does not cover critical aspects like required permissions, file format constraints, error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation modifies the original file. The description is minimal beyond basic functionality, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. However, the parameter explanations are somewhat verbose, and the Returns section could be more concise, but overall it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, output schema provided), the description is moderately complete. It covers basic functionality and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. The output schema handles return values, so the description need not explain those, but it should address more operational context for a mutation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing clear semantics for all 6 parameters in the Args section, including examples (e.g., '1,3,5' for slide_numbers, 'ko' for target_language) and optional/default behaviors (e.g., output_file auto-generated if not provided). It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on model_id options or polishing effects.

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 translates specific slides in a PowerPoint presentation, using the verb 'translate' with the resource 'specific slides in a PowerPoint presentation'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'translate_powerpoint' by specifying 'specific slides' rather than the entire presentation, and from tools like 'get_slide_info' by focusing on translation rather than information retrieval.

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 implies usage context through the parameter descriptions (e.g., slide numbers, target language) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'translate_powerpoint' for full presentations or 'post_process_powerpoint' for other operations. It provides basic guidance through the Args section but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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