create_presentation_from_file

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: max size 5 MB, supports preservation modes, returns a job ID, and requires polling. Lacks mention of any destructive side effects, but creation tools typically imply mutation.

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?

Two concise sentences cover all critical points: purpose, usage guidance, constraints, and follow-up steps. No wasted words.

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 12 parameters (mostly optional) and no output schema, the description covers essential behavioral aspects: size limit, return type, polling, and references to sibling for options. Could mention error handling or example, but sufficient for an experienced agent.

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 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value beyond schema: size limit for file_data, match requirement for mime_type, references to sibling tool for preservationMode and exportType options, and notes on slideCount dependency.

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 'Convert an uploaded document ... into a presentation,' listing supported file types. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'create_presentation_from_content' by noting the different input method.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the caller already has a source document.' Provides clear alternative: 'For pasted raw text use create_presentation_from_content.' Also mentions polling via check_job_status.

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