slides_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose some non-obvious behavior: the template deck is copied rather than mutated, and entries run in order against evolving numbering. However, it omits mutation/permission implications, account/auth caveats, and any failure behavior for a write-capable 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause carries information. The second sentence is dense with nested conditions ('give it a layout to change that') but stays on topic.

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 4-parameter creation tool with a nested 11-property slide object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main creation and fill paths but omits what the call returns (e.g. the new deck's id/URL) and any limit or permission context, leaving chaining and error handling underspecified.

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 75% and the schema already documents the nested slide entry fields in depth, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: that the template accepts 'any deck URL or id' and is copied, and that on a blank deck the first entry targets the existing title slide while later entries are appended.

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 a Google Slides presentation') and clarifies the two optional paths (template copy, inline slide fill). It distinguishes itself from slides_write implicitly through the fill semantics and from slides_copy by noting the source deck 'is copied', but it never names an alternative sibling explicitly.

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 explains how the slides entries behave once you call it, but never says when to use slides_create versus slides_copy (copying an existing deck) or slides_write (filling an existing deck). An agent must infer tool selection from the name alone.

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