Create deck

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

Annotations only say it is not read-only, not destructive and not open-world; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing that the deck is rendered with animations, that it returns deck id, revision, validation findings and measured overflow, and that nothing is persisted when slides contain errors. That all-or-nothing failure semantics is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return shape, then the failure guarantee. There is no filler, and since no output schema exists, the return-value sentence earns its place rather than repeating structured data.

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 this complex — 7 parameters, deep nested objects, no output schema — the description covers the action, the return payload and the error behavior adequately. What is missing is the surrounding workflow: that slides require layout ids and asset ids produced by sibling tools, and what the design/motion/brand_kit_id parameters interact with.

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 only 43% across 7 parameters, so the description carries real weight here, yet it names no parameter at all — not title, brief, slides, design, motion, previews or brand_kit_id. Nested objects like design, motion and slides are where an agent most needs orientation, and the description offers none.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Creates a deck with all its slides') and adds scope that matters: creation is atomic and in one call, so it is implicitly distinct from incremental editors like apply_ops. It never names a sibling or an alternative path, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as validate_deck or apply_ops, nor prerequisites like needing layout ids from instadeck://layouts, asset ids from add_asset, or a brand_kit_id. The purpose is obvious enough that an agent will guess correctly, but nothing steers the choice or the setup order.

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