Save Presentation

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

No behavioral annotations are provided (no readOnly/destructive hints), so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that saving is in-place (equivalent to Ctrl+S), implying an overwrite, but it doesn't describe failure modes, permission requirements, or whether a confirmation prompt might occur. This is adequate for a simple save but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise, with the action stated in the first line, followed by a brief Args/Returns structure. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is 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 simple save operation, the description covers the primary action, parameter semantics, and return type. It doesn't address edge cases like saving a non-existent presentation or error handling, but these are minor for this operation and the output schema isn't present. It's complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 schema has zero description coverage, but the description explicitly defines the sole parameter: 'presentation: Presentation name or path (None = active presentation).' This fully explains the parameter's meaning and default behavior, compensating completely for the schema's lack of description.

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 states a clear verb ('Save') and resource ('an open presentation') with the clarification 'in place' and the Ctrl+S equivalence. It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings, none of which perform a save operation.

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 clearly implies the tool is for persisting changes to an open presentation. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives (none exist among siblings) or exclusion criteria, but the action is obvious. The wording 'Save an open presentation in place' gives enough contextual clarity for an agent to choose it when a save is needed.

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