Swipefile to Google Slides

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

Adds substantial non-obvious behavior beyond annotations: every call creates a brand-new deck, the drive.file scope limits access to files Hermoso created, expired Meta ad-library links degrade gracefully to a text placeholder, and the reply reports how many such cases occurred. These details align with the annotations (not read-only, not idempotent).

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 main capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent sentences add important constraints, failure modes, and prerequisites. It is somewhat dense and includes minor product framing, but each statement earns its place.

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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the output format (presentation id + URL), side-effect semantics, failure handling, permissions, and integration prerequisites. Nothing essential for correctly calling and interpreting the tool is missing.

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 the schema already documents limit, title, and collection. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries that burden.

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 names a specific verb and resource: turn a swipefile collection into a Google Slides deck with one slide per saved ad, including creative, brand, copy, run dates, and platform. This clearly distinguishes it from generic document/sheet tools and from the prior JSON-only export path.

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?

It frames the intended use case ('the thing a marketer actually presents to a client or a team'), states the Google Drive prerequisite, and warns that it cannot add slides to an existing user-owned deck. It does not name a sibling tool as an explicit alternative, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement.

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