Export the deck

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioural detail beyond that: outputs land in export/, PDFs get bookmarks from slide titles, PNGs are one per printed page. The Playwright/Chromium dependency is exactly the kind of environment precondition that annotations cannot express.

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?

Densely packed but front-loaded: the verb and the format list arrive first, the dependency note last. No filler sentences, though the parenthetical-heavy format list reads as a run-on and could be split for scanability.

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?

With a 100%-covered six-parameter schema, full annotations and an output schema, the definition carries what it needs to. Remaining gaps — overwrite behaviour on re-export and whether an existing export/ directory is merged or replaced — are minor for an idempotent, non-destructive write tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above that by explaining what each formats enum value actually contains (bookmarks, one PNG per printed page, images+notes vs native shapes). It still says nothing about how 'range' interacts with 'withClicks' or what 'out' does when relative.

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 and enumerates every export target, including the meaningful distinction between 'pptx' (images + notes) and 'pptx-editable' (native text/shapes/tables). An agent knows exactly what the tool produces, though it never contrasts itself with nearby siblings such as deck_build or deck_preview.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of formats and the destination folder, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over deck_build, deck_preview, or slide_render. The one prerequisite it does give — 'Needs Playwright + Chromium' — is a useful operational gate rather than routing guidance.

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