Create a presentation

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

Annotations declare this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context: it creates a file from a template, returns slides with element ids and placeholder text, and the resulting file is a normal editable GlideDeck project. It does not disclose overwrite semantics (what happens when the file exists and overwrite=false), which is a minor gap.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The verb and primary resource are front-loaded, followed by return behavior and editability context.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and only 60% schema coverage, the description usefully explains the return value and future editability. However, it omits critical contextual details such as overwrite behavior and the purpose of the title parameter, leaving an agent without enough information to call it safely in edge cases.

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 60%. The description restates the template default ('blank'), which is already in the schema, and does not explain the title or overwrite parameters. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving important semantics (overwrite behavior) unaddressed.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new GlideDeck project file from a template.' It also mentions the default template and return contents. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like import_pptx or get_presentation, but the creation scope is clear.

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?

Usage is implied by 'creates a new GlideDeck project file,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives such as import_pptx or get_presentation. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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