gws.slides.create

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds useful behavior: it creates a new empty document, is owned by the account, returns a shareable URL, and never modifies existing content. This aligns with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false without merely repeating structured metadata.

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 front-loaded and mostly concise, but it redundantly states the creation and return of ID/URL in both the first sentence and the later sentence. It could be tightened to three sentences without losing substance.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs, output expectations, ownership, emptiness of the new doc, and recommended follow-up tool. Minor redundancy and lack of explicit edge cases keep it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%; title and account are already described in the schema. The description reinforces 'title' and mentions the resulting ID/URL, but it does not add substantial new meaning about the parameters themselves.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Google Slides presentation with the given title.' It identifies the output (ID and URL) and distinguishes itself from slides.batch_update by explicitly pointing to that tool for adding content.

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 clearly states the tool's role and gives an explicit next step: 'Add slides and content with slides.batch_update.' It does not name exclusions or directly compare with gws.docs.create/sheets.create, but the context is clear enough.

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