export_presentation

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

No annotations provided, so description must stand alone. It implies export produces a deliverable but doesn't clarify if the operation is destructive (e.g., no mention of overwriting files), whether it requires any special authorization, or what happens on failure. Without annotations, the description lacks detail about side effects or error conditions.

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 that directly describe purpose and usage. Every word is informative, no fluff. Front-loaded with the key action and outcome.

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 low complexity (2 required params, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is sufficient for basic use but lacks behavioral nuance. No mention of return values, error handling, or export quality. For a simple export tool, it's minimally adequate.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds context 'finished presentation' for presentation_id and 'deliverable artifact' for formats, but these are logical extensions of the schema. No additional semantics like default format or format-specific details are provided, so it meets the baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states the tool exports a presentation to specific formats (PDF, PowerPoint, link). The phrase 'finished presentation' and 'after generation or editing' distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_slide or generate_presentation which focus on creation/modification.

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?

Says 'Use this after generation or editing when you need a deliverable artifact,' which explicitly defines when to use it. However, no mention of when not to use it or alternatives among siblings like get_presentations (which might retrieve data) or generate_presentation (which creates the artifact anew).

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