Export deck

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds genuine behavioral detail: html is self-contained and animated, pdf has selectable text, pptx has editable text/native charts/speaker notes and loses animations. That format-fidelity tradeoff is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every parenthetical earns its place by distinguishing the formats. It is dense but not padded, though the one-sentence form makes it slightly harder to scan than a short bulleted list would be.

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 should ideally say what is returned (e.g., the written file path) and whether an existing target path is overwritten, which it omits. It does, however, fully cover the format semantics and the local-server constraint is captured in the path parameter, so the gap is modest rather than disqualifying.

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 67%, and the one undocumented parameter is the enum 'format', which the description effectively compensates for by explaining what each enum value produces. deck_id and path are already documented in the schema, so the description adds value precisely where the schema is silent.

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?

States a specific verb ('Exports') and resource ('the deck') and enumerates the three output formats with their distinguishing traits. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never contrasts itself with sibling tools like render_preview or get_deck_view, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the format descriptions help an agent pick html vs pdf vs pptx, which is real guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the adjacent preview/render tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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