slides_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the side effect that a new foreground tab is created (focus-stealing), but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or what happens if the deck is not found.

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 with zero filler; the verb, resource, side effect, and optional qualifier are all packed in without waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should indicate what is returned (e.g., URL or tab reference) and note the account-selection behavior; it does neither. Adequate for the core action but leaves real gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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%: deck and account are documented, but slide has no description beyond a minimum of 1. The description only mentions 'optionally at a slide', adding little beyond the schema and leaving indexing semantics (1-based) unexplained.

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 (presentation) plus the concrete effect: a new foreground Chrome tab. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like slides_read or slides_list, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'for the user to see' implies the use case is user-facing visual display, but the description never says when to prefer this over slides_read or slides_export. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling routing are given.

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