create_slide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool adds a slide and mentions slide types, but does not reveal side effects (e.g., does it modify existing slides? auto-save?), or permissions needed. It adds context about targeted edits, but could be more specific about behavioral traits.

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, which is efficient. However, the phrase 'including classic content slides or more creative visually led slides' is somewhat redundant with the slide_type enum. It could be slightly tighter, but overall it's not verbose.

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 6 parameters, high schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context for the core action (adding a slide) but lacks details on response behavior, error states, or what happens after slide creation. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the slide_type parameter's semantics (classic vs creative) and implies a workflow (targeted edits on existing decks). It does not repeat schema descriptions but provides extra context, meriting a 4.

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 it adds a slide to an existing presentation, specifying targeted edits for decks that already exist, and distinguishes between classic content and creative visual slides. This differentiates it from generating a new deck, but does not explicitly distinguish from deleting or exporting slides, though the sibling set is clear enough.

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 says to use it for 'targeted edits after a deck already exists', which implies when a presentation is already created, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., for initial generation). No alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is implicit but adequate for a simple add operation.

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