export_pptx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two modes and return format but omits prerequisites, side effects, and error conditions. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state it.

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?

Reasonably concise with a clear mode breakdown. The Args section partially repeats info from the mode descriptions, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

The description covers the return format and modes but lacks prerequisites (design spec existence), error handling, and differentiation from export_html. Output schema exists but does not fully compensate for missing context.

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 0%, so description compensates by explaining the behavior of each parameter (direct generation vs auto-load). Adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults, though could specify the format of the JSON string.

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 tool exports the design spec as a PPTX file, with specific verb and resource. It explains two modes of operation but does not differentiate from sibling tools like export_html.

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 provides internal mode guidance (recommended auto-load) but no external guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as export_html. Missing when-not-to-use and alternative mentions.

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