generate_presentation

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the input type and next step with get_generation_status, but does not describe response format, error conditions, rate limits, or any destructive behavior. This is adequate for a creation tool but lacks depth.

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, zero waste. Front-loaded with action and purpose, then specific use cases and post-step. Perfectly 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 high parameter count and no output schema, description succinctly covers the tool's role. It mentions the follow-up step (get_generation_status), which helps agents plan. Could elaborate on return behavior or error handling, but overall complete enough for a creation 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 100% with descriptions on each parameter, but the description adds no further meaning beyond listing them. However, it does name specific types of source content, slightly enhancing clarity. For a tool with many params, additional context would help, but param descriptions in schema are already detailed.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a presentation from raw text or markdown, specifying use cases like notes, outlines, meeting summaries. Differentiates from siblings by mentioning polling get_generation_status afterward, implying it's the initial creation step.

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?

Description advises using this tool to turn content into a deck before polling get_generation_status, giving clear context. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives for slide creation (e.g., create_slide) are mentioned.

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