Swipefile to Google Slides

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

The description thoroughly discloses behavioral mechanics beyond the annotations: it explains the drive.file scope limitation (why it cannot modify existing decks), the handling of expired ad-library links (falls back to textual description, reports count), returns presentation id+URL, and the connector prerequisite. Annotations only indicate readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description adds substantial operational depth that an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then progresses to behavioral constraints and prerequisites. It is longer than strictly necessary (~150 words) but every sentence serves a distinct function (purpose, return value, new-deck behavior, expiry handling, connector requirement). Slight over-explanation of the expiry edge case could be trimmed, but overall it earns its length.

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 tool with no output schema, it explicitly states the return value (presentation id + URL). It covers failure modes (expired links), scope limitations, and the required connector setup. It also handles the fact that all parameters are optional by stating defaults. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly 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% — each parameter (limit, title, collection) already has explicit descriptions including defaults. The main description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3; the description doesn't elevate it further.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Turn a SWIPEFILE COLLECTION into a real Google Slides deck', and enumerates exactly what each slide carries (creative, brand, copy, run dates, platform). It also differentiates from siblings by noting 'until now the swipefile’s only export was JSON', making it clear this is the dedicated Slides export. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 states the clear use case ('the thing a marketer actually presents') and provides critical constraints: creates a NEW deck every time, cannot add to an existing deck due to drive.file scope, and requires Drive connected (with explicit settings path). It implicitly contrasts with JSON export and other Drive file tools (e.g., create_doc, create_sheet) by positioning it as the presentation-specific exporter, though it does not name alternatives explicitly. That is sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use it.

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