Export Presentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention synchronous vs. asynchronous execution, the waitForCompletion parameter, side effects, permissions, or the relationship to export jobs. This is a significant gap for a tool with an async workflow.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the cost of essential context. It lacks any enumeration of options, behavior, or usage, making it more an under-specification than a model of conciseness.

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's complexity (six parameters, multiple enums, a completion-waiting option) and the lack of an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the export produces, whether it returns the file or a job ID, or how it interacts with get_export_job. The description is far too minimal for the actual tool complexity.

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, but it adds no information about the six parameters. It doesn't explain the meaning of format, size, pages, exportQuality, or waitForCompletion. The description is entirely unhelpful for parameter understanding.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Exports the presentation') and mentions a supported format, but it doesn't specify which formats or what the actual outcome is (e.g., file, job). It distinguishes somewhat from the name but not from sibling tools like get_export_job, and the phrase 'supported format' is vague without referencing the schema's enum.

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 such as get_export_job. No mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description gives no context beyond a basic statement of function.

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