delete_presentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the action is 'destructive' and 'permanent,' which discloses that the operation is irreversible. However, it does not mention whether the operation has idempotency side effects (e.g., what happens if the presentation doesn't exist), auth requirements, or any cascading effects. It adds some value beyond the raw schema but could be more transparent.

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 short – two sentences – and front-loaded with the main purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second adds an important usage caution. It could potentially be improved by removing redundancy, but overall it's concise.

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 the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what it does and the risk. However, for a destructive action, additional context about idempotency, error handling, or whether the operation is reversible (confirming it's not) would improve completeness. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The schema coverage is 100%, with a single parameter 'presentation_id' having a description that already explains its purpose. The tool description adds no further semantics about the parameter format, constraints, or behavior beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate here.

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 the action ('Delete a presentation permanently') and the resource ('presentation'). It uses specific verbs and explicitly warns that this is a permanent, destructive action, which distinguishes it from other tools like 'create_slide' or 'delete_slide'.

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 includes the guidance 'Use this destructive action only when the caller explicitly intends to remove the deck,' which implies caution but does not clearly specify when not to use it or name alternatives. Sibling tools like 'delete_slide' or 'create_slide' exist, but no explicit exclusion or alternative is given.

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