create_presentation

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose the key contract that a presentation_id is returned and is required for future calls. It does not mention whether the presentation is saved automatically, whether it is blank by default, or any relationship to save_presentation, which are relevant behavioral details given the sibling context.

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 short sentences: the first states the core action, the second states the essential follow-up requirement. Every word earns its place and the most important usage constraint is front-loaded.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient to invoke it correctly. Yet it does not mention that this creates a blank/default presentation versus a template-based one, and it silently skips the save_presentation step from the sibling list. These gaps reduce completeness in a large sibling toolset.

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 input schema has no properties, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4; the description adds useful context about the output rather than repeating schema information.

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: 'Create a new PowerPoint presentation.' It is clear about the basic operation and identifies the intended object. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from template-based creation siblings like create_presentation_from_template, so some differentiation is left to the tool names.

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 instruction that the returned presentation_id 'must be passed to all subsequent tool calls' provides clear lifecycle guidance after invocation. It does not, however, state when to choose this tool over the many creation alternatives, such as create_presentation_from_template or auto_generate_presentation, leaving the selection context only implied.

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