create_presentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates presentations 'from scratch' and accepts a JSON specification, which implies a write operation but doesn't address permissions, error handling, or what happens if the output_path already exists. It mentions supported elements (text boxes, shapes, images) but lacks details on limitations or performance characteristics.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains the core functionality and input format, the second provides usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant information or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and usage context. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions, file overwriting behavior, or response format, which would be helpful given the tool's complexity and mutation nature. The high schema coverage compensates partially but not fully.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'JSON specification with slides, shapes, text content, and formatting' and listing some supported elements, but doesn't provide additional syntax, constraints, or usage examples that aren't already in the parameter descriptions.

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 specific action ('Create a new PowerPoint presentation from scratch') and resource ('PowerPoint presentation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'rearrange_slides' or 'apply_text_replacements' which modify existing presentations. It explicitly mentions creating presentations 'before using other tools to modify them,' establishing its unique role in the workflow.

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 for when to use this tool ('to create new presentations before using other tools to modify them'), implying it's for initial creation rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for updating existing presentations) or name specific alternatives among the siblings, though the context makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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