slides_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the dual mode (whole-deck file vs single-slide image) and that output lands on the local filesystem. It is silent on overwrite semantics for existing files, required auth/account, and failure behavior, which are meaningful gaps for a disk-writing 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the primary action and then the conditional image case — no filler, no repetition of the schema.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the two operating modes and format mapping are covered, but the overwrite flag is undocumented anywhere and there is no hint of return behavior or side effects on existing files.

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%, so the schema documents deck, path, slide and account reasonably well. The description adds genuine value by mapping human format names ('txt') onto the enum and by tying slide to the image formats, but it says nothing about overwrite or the account parameter.

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 concrete verb (save) plus resource (presentation) and enumerates the exact output formats, which cleanly separates it from the docs/presentation read-write siblings. It never explicitly names a sibling (e.g. docs_export), so differentiation relies on the reader inferring 'presentation' vs 'document'.

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 clause '(pass slide)' implicitly tells the agent when to supply the slide parameter, i.e. only for png/jpeg/svg. Beyond that there is no when-to-use framing, no mention of prerequisites (an account, an existing deck) and no alternative tool named for other operations.

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