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 of disclosing behavior. It only mentions the confirm requirement, but fails to explain that this likely creates a slide deck from notebook content, whether it is synchronous, what side effects occur, or what the output will be. This is a mutation tool with no safety or behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it omits critical behavioral context for a tool with 7 parameters, so it is not perfectly calibrated to the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the slide deck contains, how it uses source_ids or focus_prompt, whether generation is asynchronous, or what the user should expect. The description provides almost no surrounding 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 coverage is 100% and all parameters have descriptions. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the confirm requirement which the schema already documents. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Generate') and the resource ('a slide deck'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like audio_overview_create or video_overview_create. The purpose is immediately clear without needing to infer from the name alone.

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 only usage guidance is 'requires confirm=true', which is a prerequisite but not a when-to-use directive. There is no mention of when to choose this tool over alternatives like report_create or infographic_create, nor any exclusions or conditions beyond the confirmation flag.

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