Export deck

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

The description explicitly says it will 'write it to the local filesystem', which is an environment-modifying side effect, yet annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. That is a direct conflict about whether the tool mutates anything, and the description also gives no detail on overwrite behavior if outputPath exists or on Drive authorization requirements.

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?

One sentence, no filler, with the output formats and the destination front-loaded. Nothing to trim.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool produces (a PDF/PPTX file on disk) and where it comes from (Google Drive). What is missing is the return value (does it return the written path?) and overwrite behavior, which matters given the filesystem write.

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 67%: outputPath and presentationId are already documented in the schema, and format is constrained by an enum. The description's 'PDF or PPTX' merely restates that enum, so it adds no semantics beyond what structured fields already provide; baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (export), resource (the presentation), supported formats (PDF/PPTX), and the distinguishing side effect (writes to the local filesystem). That side effect clearly separates it from read-only siblings like get_presentation and from all the slide-mutation tools.

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 only implied: exporting is what you call when you need a file artifact. No when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as Drive access or that the presentation must already exist, and no named alternative.

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