Import to Google Slides

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

The description reveals important behavioral details: 'Google Drive automatically converts the source presentation to native Google Slides format, preserving slides, layouts, text, and images.' This goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate mutability) by explaining how the conversion works and what is preserved. The description does not contradict annotations, and the added context helps the agent understand side effects and expected behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose immediately. The second paragraph is a single practical tip. No filler or redundant content. It earns a 5 because every sentence contributes useful information without being verbose.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description is sufficient. It covers the main function, automatic conversion, and preservation behavior. With a fully documented schema (100% coverage) and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values or every parameter. It lacks some context about authentication (user_google_email is required but not mentioned), but the schema clearly covers that.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds parameter-level guidance by specifying 'For batch operations, prefer file_path for files on disk so callers do not need to load full file contents into their context.' This gives practical advice on when to use file_path over file_url, adding value beyond the schema's dry 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 tool's function: 'Imports a presentation (PPTX, PPT, ODP) into Google Slides format with automatic conversion.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_to_google_doc and import_to_google_sheets. The mention of specific formats (PPTX, PPT, ODP) further clarifies its purpose.

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 practical guidance: 'For batch operations, prefer file_path for files on disk so callers do not need to load full file contents into their context.' This gives a clear usage context and suggests a preferred parameter choice. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_presentation or when not to use this tool, but the guidance is useful enough to score above the baseline.

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