Save a copy of the project

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description must carry the rest. It does add genuine behavioral information — media files are copied along — but says nothing about what happens if the destination already exists, what 'overwrite' does, or whether the original is left untouched.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the media-copy side effect parenthesized. The trailing 'in GlideDeck' and example clause are slightly expendable but still earn their place as 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 copy operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanical behavior (new location, media copied). The gaps are the overwrite/existing-destination semantics, which matter for safe invocation but are a secondary omission.

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 only 25% (only 'path' is documented), so the description needs to compensate. 'New name or folder' loosely gestures at new_path and title, but overwrite and new_path's format/semantics are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 concrete verb ('Saves the project') plus the resource and the scope ('under a new name or folder'), which separates it from edit_presentation or create_presentation in the sibling list. It's clear this produces a duplicate rather than modifying in place, though the name 'save_as' is only lightly re-explained.

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 'e.g. to keep a version the user will edit later' clause gives one concrete scenario that implies when to call it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g. why not create_presentation). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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