create_presentation_from_topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the async behavior: returns a job ID, poll via check_job_status, then use docurl. It does not detail failure modes, authentication needs, or rate limits, but the core behavioral flow is well explained.

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 four sentences, each adding essential information: what the tool does, when to use it, how the async flow works, and an alternative. No fluff, and critical details are front-loaded.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description provides a complete picture: usage context, async flow with polling, and alternative tool. It covers the key aspects an agent needs to invoke and manage the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema—it mentions topic, slideCount, etc., but that matches schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Generate a full AI-powered presentation from a topic or brief.' It specifies the resource (presentation) and scope (from topic/brief), and distinguishes from sibling tool create_single_slide by noting when to use the alternative.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use when the caller has a subject line, headline, or short brief and wants a complete deck.' It also provides an alternative: 'For a single hero slide instead of a deck, use create_single_slide.' Additionally, it explains the async processing flow and directs to check_job_status for polling.

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