Draft deck from git

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work by disclosing exactly what gets generated, including the granularity rule 'one step per hunk'. It omits side-effect and return semantics (does it create a new deck, and what identifier is returned to feed update_slide/add_slides?), which matters for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the generation behavior and structured as generate-then-refine. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical '(one step per hunk)' is a worthwhile precision detail rather than filler.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers creation, artifact structure, and the follow-up workflow well. The notable gap is the return value/identifier needed to chain into update_slide and add_slides, which the absence of an output schema makes more important.

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 only 50%: base, head, and title are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by framing the input as 'a git range' (implying base/head are range endpoints) and by defining significance via churn/significant files, which maps to max_files. It still leaves the title parameter's origin (auto vs. supplied) ambiguous.

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 (Create), resource (skeleton deck), and source (a git range), then enumerates the generated artifact: title with stats, file map, and stepped diff slides. This clearly differentiates it from the generic create_deck sibling by scoping it to git-derived content.

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?

Explicitly describes the two-phase workflow: first generate the skeleton, then 'refine: add narration, callouts, behavior slides, and a review checklist with update_slide/add_slides', naming the sibling tools to use next. It lacks an explicit when-not or prerequisite statement (e.g., must a deck already exist), so it falls short of a 5.

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