PowerPoint (.pptx) to Markdown

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds genuinely new context: it runs locally and uploads nothing, extraction silently drops images/charts/SmartArt, and inline Markdown is truncated at maxChars while an output file is never cut. These are the exact surprises an agent would otherwise hit at runtime.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and output format, then progressively narrows to exclusions, parameter hints, and the local-processing note. Every clause carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing the return value and does so concretely: slide headings, paragraphs, bullet indent levels, Markdown tables, and quoted speaker notes. Combined with exclusion and truncation notes, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description still adds value by showing a concrete slides range ("1-5, 8"), restating the 200k maxChars default with the truncation consequence, and clarifying that "output" returns a path instead of text.

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 opening clause names a specific verb and resource ("Extract the text of a PowerPoint .pptx deck as Markdown") and immediately defines the output shape ("## Slide N: title" per slide). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling converters like ai_docx_to_markdown, ai_pdf_to_markdown, and ai_xlsx_to_markdown by source format.

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 sets clear boundaries on what it handles: "Old binary .ppt is not supported" and images/charts/SmartArt are excluded. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for those cases (e.g. ai_pdf_to_markdown for exported PDFs), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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