open_presentation

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only. The description adds valuable context beyond that by stating the returned ID is required for all subsequent tool calls, which is a key behavioral contract. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action and the critical return-contract are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse and act on.

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 simplicity, one obvious parameter, the output schema, and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. A more detailed description would add little practical value.

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?

There is only one parameter, file_path, and the description confirms it refers to an existing PowerPoint file. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not specify path format, accepted extensions, or whether the path is local, remote, or storage-based, leaving some ambiguity.

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 specific verb and resource: opening an existing PowerPoint presentation from a file. It also clarifies that the result is a presentation_id used for subsequent calls, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_presentation or get_presentation_info.

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 this tool is the entry point for working with an existing presentation file, since the returned presentation_id must be passed to later calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes the appropriate use clear.

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