slides_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action 'create' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it is idempotent, or what the response contains. It does not describe side effects or security considerations, leaving the agent without essential safety/behavior context for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the operation and resource. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description is too sparse. While an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description fails to explain the lone required parameter. This incompleteness forces the agent to infer parameter semantics, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly without additional experimentation.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no description for the required 'title' parameter. The description likewise does not explain what 'title' is for, nor does it link the tool's purpose to the parameter. The agent is left guessing whether 'title' is the presentation name, a file name, or something else. This is a significant gap for a single-param tool.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a new Google Slides presentation'. It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like slides_add_slide (adds a slide) and slides_read (reads existing), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a new Google Slides presentation is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear since it is the only creation tool for slides among siblings. Thus it provides clear context without needing further exclusions.

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