generate_slide_deck

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (generating images and assembling into PPTX) and explains the effect of the style and enhance parameters. It does not contradict any annotations and adds sufficient context for safe invocation.

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 efficient, with the main action in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add necessary detail without fluff. Slightly longer than ideal but earns its length.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, all parameters, and behavioral choices. It does not discuss return values or errors, but for a generation tool this is acceptable. It provides enough context for correct use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to each parameter: 'prompts' as 'CONTENT of one slide', explains the default style, and clarifies the enhance flag. This goes well beyond the raw schema, making the parameters understandable.

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 starts with 'Generate one image per prompt then assemble them into a PPTX deck,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing the style and enhance options, which are specific to this tool.

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 explicit guidance on using the style parameter ('style='slide' (default here) applies a clean editorial presentation design') and the enhance parameter ('Set enhance=False to send prompts verbatim'). It implies the intended use case for slide decks but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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