Validate Presentation

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

The description honestly discloses that the tool does not work and explains why (no API endpoint). This is valuable transparency, but it doesn't describe any fallback behavior or error handling, so it's only partially transparent.

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?

A single sentence that directly states the non-implementation status. It is efficient and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 non-implemented tool, the description explains why it's unavailable, which is the most important context. However, it lacks guidance on alternatives or expected behavior if called, so it's not fully complete.

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?

The schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention them at all. It adds no meaning to presentationId or checks beyond their names in the schema.

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 the intended purpose ('validate an existing design against') but immediately negates it with 'Not implemented'. So the purpose is clear but the tool is non-functional. It does not fully distinguish from siblings since it's just a warning.

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?

It clearly says the tool is not implemented, implying it should not be used, but provides no guidance on what to use instead or when this might be relevant. No alternatives are mentioned.

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