Create deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors: the deck starts empty and the call returns an id plus a live viewer URL, which hints at sharing semantics. It says nothing about permissions, whether the viewer URL is public, or what happens if title collides, leaving notable gaps for a creation 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return values, then the follow-up tool. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description adequately covers the return shape (id and live viewer URL). Combined with the 60% parameter documentation, an agent has enough to invoke it, though the absence of any permission or side-effect detail keeps it from a 5.

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 60% (ref, repo, theme documented; title/subtitle self-evident), and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. The theme enum default is only explained in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since coverage is not low enough to demand description-side compensation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an empty presentation deck') and the 'empty' qualifier distinguishes it from content-bearing siblings like draft_deck_from_git. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from draft_deck_from_git, which also creates a deck, so it stops short of a 5.

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 sentence 'Add content with add_slides' gives a clear next-step workflow cue, but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative draft_deck_from_git for repo-based deck creation. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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