slide_deck_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that user approval is required (via confirm=True) and implies a generative/mutation operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, whether the operation is reversible, or what the output looks like. The description adds some behavioral context but is incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a usage note, then an Args section. However, the Args section mixes parameter documentation with usage constraints (e.g., 'Must be True after user approval' for confirm). It's concise but could be more front-loaded with critical information.

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?

Given 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining parameter semantics and usage constraints. The presence of an output schema means return values needn't be described. However, for a generative tool with user approval requirements, it could better address behavioral aspects like error conditions or side effects.

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 provides meaningful semantics for all 7 parameters: notebook_id (Notebook UUID), source_ids (Source IDs with default), format (detailed_deck|presenter_slides), length (short|default), language (BCP-47 code examples), focus_prompt (Optional focus text), and confirm (Must be True after user approval). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on parameter interactions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate slide deck' with specific parameters like format, length, and language. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on slide deck creation rather than other content types like audio overviews, infographics, or quizzes. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'report_create' or 'video_overview_create'.

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: 'Requires confirm=True after user approval' and specifies that 'source_ids' defaults to all. It implies usage for creating slide decks from notebook content. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'report_create' or 'infographic_create', nor does it mention prerequisites beyond user approval.

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