Open deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the view is live (later edits appear immediately) and that a URL is returned, but says nothing about whether launching a browser is a side effect with consequences, what happens if the deck doesn't exist, or any permission requirements.

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?

One sentence with a compact parenthetical; the liveness note and return value are both front-loaded and no words are wasted. Not a 5 only because the parenthetical is doing a lot of unexplained work.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the live-view semantic, and the return value. Remaining gaps (error behavior, deck existence requirements) are minor for a simple open-in-browser action.

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 67%: slide and launch are documented in the schema and deck_id is not. The description's 'Returns the URL' ties loosely to the launch=false behavior already stated in the schema, so it adds only marginal semantic value — baseline 3 is right.

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 ('Open') and resource ('the deck') plus the destination ('in the user's browser'), which cleanly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_deck or list_decks. It does not explicitly name a sibling for differentiation, keeping it 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?

Nothing states when to prefer this over get_deck (which presumably returns data without launching a browser) or over export_deck. The 'live' parenthetical hints at the use case but the choice between this and its closest siblings is left entirely to inference.

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