slide_deck_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirmation requirement, which is a critical behavioral trait for safety. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether this creates persistent resources, rate limits, or error conditions), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose and key requirement. The Args section is well-structured but slightly verbose; every sentence adds value, though the formatting could be more streamlined for quick scanning.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, generation tool), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description provides solid coverage. It explains parameters well and includes the critical confirmation requirement. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to cover them, making this reasonably complete for the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all 7 parameters: explaining 'notebook_id' as a UUID, 'source_ids' default behavior, 'format' and 'length' options, 'language' as BCP-47 codes, 'focus_prompt' as optional text, and 'confirm' requirement. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'Generate' and resource 'slide deck', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'report_create' or 'infographic_create' which might also generate content, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 clear context with 'Requires confirm=True after user approval', indicating a prerequisite for use. It doesn't specify alternatives among siblings or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the confirmation requirement offers practical guidance for safe invocation.

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