create_presentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates this is a creation operation (write behavior) and discloses that an empty presentation is created, returning an ID. It also notes that metadata is set here. It lacks explicit side-effect details (e.g., persistence, error conditions) but adequately conveys the core behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose in the first clause. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and return value, the second frames the parameters as title-slide metadata. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return value details are not needed, but the description adds the key integration fact that the returned ID is required by other tools. For a simple create operation, it covers the essential context: the resource, the metadata parameters, and the prerequisite role. Minor gaps around error handling and edge cases keep it from a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates all five parameters (title, optional subtitle, author, institute, date) and labels them as 'title-slide metadata', adding semantic meaning beyond the parameter names. It could provide more detail on formats or interactions, but this is sufficient for self-explanatory parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'presentation' and specifies it creates an 'empty' presentation, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_presentations or update_presentation_metadata. It also mentions the return value and that it's required by other tools, uniquely identifying its role.

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 explicitly states the returned presentation_id is 'required by every other Group-A tool', signaling that this tool should be used first as the creation entry point. It also says 'All title-slide metadata is set here', providing guidance on when to use it for initial setup. It doesn't mention alternatives but none are obvious for creation.

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