create_deck

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the present URL is not shareable and only Space members can open it, and it details the alternative sharing method. It also notes the prerequisite that diagram ids must already exist. It does not mention any other side effects, but for a creation tool this is sufficient.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph with the core action and primary parameter instruction front-loaded. Each sentence adds value, covering the flow, return values, and sharing caveat without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers return values (deck id and present URL), the non-shareability limitation, and how to share externally. It also specifies prerequisites and the typical usage flow. Nothing essential for an agent to call it correctly is missing.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: slides must be a complete ordered list, a diagram may appear at most once, and omitting slides creates an empty deck. It also explains the title's purpose and that description is optional. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions and significantly helps correct usage.

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 creates a presentation deck from existing diagrams, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from create_diagram by outlining the typical flow and implicitly from get_deck/update_deck by focusing on creation. The slideshow-order emphasis clarifies the core 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: after creating diagrams, collect their ids, and pass them in order. It also instructs to use list_diagrams to find existing ids and explains how to share the deck outside the Space via the DiagramZu Share button. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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