Open in DeckCraft

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

Annotations already cover the mutation surface (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: control=true spins up a loopback-only control channel, which tells the agent about a network/security side effect it could not infer from the schema. It omits launch failure behavior and whether the call blocks until the app loads.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first gives purpose, the second gives the one non-obvious mode and its downstream dependency. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers the essential decision (control on/off and why). It could still note what a successful open returns (e.g., confirmation vs. handles) or whether the app must already be installed, but nothing critical 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 coverage is 50% because 'control' has no schema description at all; the description compensates by explaining that control=true activates the loopback control channel. 'paths' is left to the schema's own wording, which is adequate but nothing extra is added about ordering, duplicates, or the 20-file cap behavior.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Open presentations in the DeckCraft desktop app') plus the intent (present or keep editing by hand), which cleanly separates it from the API-oriented siblings like edit_presentation. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional for the non-default mode: set control=true when you intend to drive the app via run_deckcraft_commands with live=true. It does not say when to prefer this over create_presentation/edit_presentation or what happens if the desktop app is unavailable, so it stops short of a full when/when-not matrix.

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