Create 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 states that it creates a presentation, but does not mention any side effects, required permissions, account handling (despite the optional 'account' parameter), or what the tool returns (e.g., presentation ID or URL). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no redundant wording or filler. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool.

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 create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., presentation ID), how the 'account' parameter behaves if omitted, or any prerequisites. An agent would need to guess at the result format and account handling, making the description insufficient for confident 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the 'account' parameter's role or the format of the title. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 (create) and the resource (a new Google Slides presentation), and specifies it includes a title. This distinguishes it from other slides tools like get, add_slide, or replace_text, though it doesn't explicitly name them. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.

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, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without contextual cues about when it is appropriate, such as 'use this to create a new presentation, not to edit existing ones.' This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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