Swipefile to Google Slides

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

Even though annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: a new deck is always created, drive.file scope restricts access to files Hermoso created, expired ad-library links cannot be embedded and are handled gracefully, and the reply reports the count. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then each subsequent sentence adds essential behavior, constraints, edge cases, or prerequisites. There is no filler or tautology; every sentence 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?

The description is complete for a tool with no output schema: it states the return value (presentation id + URL), creation semantics, permissions limitations, expired-link handling, and connection prerequisite. Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningfully to the parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that a collection maps to slides; it mostly discusses tool-level behavior rather than parameter-specific details.

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 states a specific action and resource: turning a swipefile collection into a Google Slides deck with one slide per ad containing concrete fields. It clearly differentiates itself from related sibling tools like save_to_swipefile or create_doc by emphasizing the export-to-presentation purpose.

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 gives clear context: this is for presenting to clients/teams, it creates a new deck every time, it cannot add to existing decks, and it requires Google Drive to be connected. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative sibling tools or stating 'use X instead,' so it is not a 5.

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