presentation_deploy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states idempotency by version and the behavior of returning the existing URL without redeploying. This adds meaningful context about side effects and repeatability.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and result, then adds the idempotency behavior. Perfectly sized for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and output (URL), which is sufficient for a simple deploy action. No output schema exists, but the URL return is stated. It lacks error conditions or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a clear understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides for the 'version' and 'id' parameters, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Publica') and resource ('una presentación como web app de Apps Script'), clearly stating the action and return value (URL). It distinguishes from siblings like presentation_get_deployment and presentation_rollback by focusing on the deployment action.

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 implies usage (to publish a version as a web app) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like presentation_get_deployment or presentation_rollback. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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