create_presentation

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 that the tool serves the presentation over HTTP and returns a URL, and explains slide-to-<section> mapping. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting, persistence) or permissions, though as a create tool the behavior is relatively self-evident.

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 concise sentences front-load the main purpose and return value. No wasted words, and the markdown detail is presented efficiently.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters and an output schema, the description captures the core workflow: slides in, URL out. It explains the two most important semantic choices (slide content format and markdown). Since the schema fully documents parameters and output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for tool selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that each slide string becomes a <section> element and that setting format to 'markdown' enables markdown parsing. This goes slightly beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 tool 'Create a reveal.js presentation from an array of slides and serve it over HTTP', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings (list, delete, info tools) by focusing on creation and serving.

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 on how to use the tool, including the default behavior (raw HTML) and how to switch to markdown via the 'format' parameter. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling tools are obviously different (list/get/delete), so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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