Translate PPTX

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

Annotations provide no safety hints, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'preserving formatting' but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive to the original source, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The preferred input method (job_id) is noted, but overall behavioral details are sparse.

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 sentences deliver the core action, features, and input options with no filler. Information is front-loaded and each sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and complex inputs, the description is adequate but lacks details on return values, async behavior, or the translation process. The schema descriptions help but the tool overview could be more comprehensive.

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 the parameter descriptions already define the inputs. The description repeats the key sources (job_id, url, base64) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond that. The pricing and language scope are not parameter-specific, so 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 ('Translate a PPTX deck'), the specific resource (PPTX files), and distinguishes it from siblings like create_slide/create_deck by noting it works on existing decks and preserving formatting. The mention of pricing and language support adds specificity.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: after creating a slide/deck (via job_id), or by providing a URL or base64. While it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, the context with sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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