translate_specific_slides

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of transparent behavior. It only says 'translate' and provides no insight into whether the original file is modified, how output files are produced, whether dry-run is available, or what model/language behavior is involved. This is minimal behavior disclosure for a complex tool.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it is so terse that it may sacrifice usefulness for brevity.

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 14 parameters and several closely related sibling tools, yet the description provides only the basic action. It does not clarify whether slides are selected via `slide_numbers`, whether a new file is generated, what happens with missing glossaries or charts, and how this differs from batch or whole-presentation variants. The output schema helps but does not compensate for this lack of contextual detail.

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 descriptions are present for 8 of 14 parameters (57%), and several defaults and parameter names are self-explanatory. The description adds essentially no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, though it does reinforce the slide-subset intent behind the `slide_numbers` parameter.

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 names a specific action ('Translate specific slides') and the target resource ('a PowerPoint presentation'), clearly conveying that only a subset of slides will be handled rather than an entire deck. It lacks an explicit contrast with sibling tools, but the scope is reasonably unambiguous.

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 phrase 'specific slides' implies that this tool is for translating selected slides rather than a whole presentation, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over `translate_powerpoint` or `batch_translate_powerpoint`, nor any exclusion or alternative guidance.

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