presentation_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the presentation is saved versioned (implying each call creates a new version/commit) and not published, and it returns id and commit SHA. This adds value beyond the schema, though it omits details like authentication 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?

The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the main action, includes the key boundary (no deploy), and states the return value. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the essential return values (id and commit SHA) and the phase distinction. It could further clarify handling of duplicate titles, but 'versionada' strongly implies new-version creation, making it sufficiently complete.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters (e.g., html can be a full document or fragment). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 creates an HTML presentation and saves it versioned in the store. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling presentation_deploy by stating 'No la publica (deploy es Fase 2)', making the scope 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 description gives clear context: it creates and versions, and notably excludes deployment by mentioning deploy is Phase 2. This implies when to use this tool versus deploy, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like presentation_update for modifying existing presentations.

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