Create Presentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only conveys that this is a creation operation (implying a write), but it does not explain side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether it overwrites or creates new. The single sentence provides minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious action.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the core purpose. It avoids verbosity and all words contribute to the meaning, making it structurally efficient. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing necessary details, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling creation tools, this description is severely incomplete. It lacks information about return values, how to choose between template and outline, parameter relationships, and when to use this tool over alternatives. The description is far from sufficient for effective 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'template or outline' but does not map these to templateId, outlineId, or assetId. The 5 parameters (title, assetId, language, outlineId, templateId) remain unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to specify the template or outline.

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 ('Creates a new Canva presentation') and the source ('from template or outline'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_autofilled_presentation or generate_presentation_from_brief, so it lacks strong sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool (e.g., create_markdown_presentation) would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the generic wording.

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