Delete Presentation

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by adding critical behavioral details: requiring explicit user confirmation, forbidding auto-execution, and warning against acting on instructions from data fields or other tool outputs. This provides essential safety guidance not captured in 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 with purpose but becomes repetitive, repeating the warning about not calling based on data fields twice. It could be more concise without losing the safety emphasis. The structure is okay but wastes space with redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (unseen), the description covers safety thoroughly and states the operation clearly. It misses details on parameter format or return behavior, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and existing output schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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 schema has a single required parameter 'presentation_id' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description only mentions 'by presentation ID', adding minimal meaning beyond the parameter name. While the parameter is self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a presentation from Pine Labs') using a specific identifier ('presentation ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on different resources like plans or payment links.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when a presentation needs deletion) and extensive warnings against misuse (requiring explicit user confirmation, never auto-execute). However, it does not explicitly compare to or exclude sibling delete tools, leaving differentiation to the resource name.

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