Generate Presentation From Brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs two sequential actions (outline creation and Autofill-based presentation generation) and depends on a brand template. However, it doesn't mention potential asynchronous behavior (though waitForCompletion parameter hints at this), failure modes when no template is available, or any return value details.

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 of about 17 words, front-loaded with the primary verb and containing no extraneous or repetitive content. Every phrase adds meaningful information about the tool's behavior and scope.

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?

This is a complex tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too minimal to guide correct invocation. It does not explain how parameters like slideCount, datasetOverrides, or waitForCompletion factor into the outcome, nor does it clarify the relationship to sibling tools such as create_presentation_outline or create_autofilled_presentation.

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 does not explain any of the 11 parameters, including the required ones (topic, objective, audience) which are the core of the 'brief'. The description's mention of 'brief' offers only a vague connection to the input 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?

States a specific action ('Builds an outline and creates a Canva presentation'), a specific mechanism ('using Autofill'), and a conditional scope ('when a brand template is available'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_presentation_outline and create_autofilled_presentation.

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 implies the intended use case: generate a presentation from a brief, using a brand template. The phrase 'when a brand template is available' provides a clear condition for when this tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for cases where no template exists.

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