Translate PPTX

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

Annotations are all false and carry no operational meaning, so the description bears the burden. It adds non-obvious behavioral facts: the '$0.02/slide' cost, the formatting-preservation guarantee, and the 32-language/script scope. It does not disclose what is returned or whether a new job is created, which is the main gap.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose+guarantee, cost+language scope, and input routes. The most important information is front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence adds a distinct fact.

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 10-parameter paid tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation facts: purpose, cost, language scope, and the three mutually exclusive input methods. The notable omission is result semantics — what the agent receives after translation — which matters because there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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%, so per baseline this is a 3. The description's one contribution — framing job_id/pptx_url/pptx_base64 as three alternative source routes — largely restates what the schema already says ('preferred — no file transfer needed'). No additional meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Translate a PowerPoint (.pptx) deck'. The qualifier 'preserving all formatting' adds precision, and translation is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (create_slide/create_deck build decks, upload_asset uploads, plan_slide plans, browse_catalog browses). An agent can identify what this tool does instantly.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: the source must come from 'a previous create_slide/create_deck' job, an HTTPS URL, or base64 — with the workflow implication that translation happens after deck creation. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement naming an alternative, hence not a 5.

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