export_presentation

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful traits: export saves to DIAL file storage, PDF is rendered through LibreOffice and reflects renderer fonts, export does NOT run visual QA, and the response includes a 'visual_qa' status field. This is far beyond what the schema or annotations reveal.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, sibling differentiation, format guidance, rendering caveat, visual QA warning, and required final-answer behavior. Important instructions are front-loaded, and the formatting is scannable despite the length.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the delivery context, format trade-offs, PDF rendering implications, visual QA expectations, and the mandatory attachment of file_url. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does a strong job for the 'format' parameter by explaining 'pptx', 'pdf', 'both', and their use cases. However, it does not clarify the semantics of 'filename' beyond the schema's default, and 'presentation_id' is only inferable from its name. The description partially compensates but leaves some parameter meaning to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export the presentation to DIAL file storage and return its file URL.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling save_presentation by saying 'Use this (not save_presentation)' to deliver the finished deck. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives direct usage guidance: use this tool rather than save_presentation when delivering the finished deck to the user. It also explains when each format is appropriate, including the special case that 'both' is usually what a user asking to 'share' or 'send' wants, and tells the agent to inspect slides with visual_inspect_slides / visual_repair_slides before exporting.

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