Create Multi-Slide Deck

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations: it discloses parallel slide rendering and merge behavior, furniture expectations, dry_run pre-flight with no render/cost, free modes, billing per rendered slide, ignored parameters (force_render/allow_partial), strict_policy rejection behavior, and deck_id==job_id polling. It also explains can_autofix patch recovery, which is behavior not visible from the schema or annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and packs useful information efficiently, with semicolon-joined clauses and clear paragraph breaks. It is dense and somewhat sprawling toward the end ('Also:', 'Polling:'), but for a 17-parameter deck-builder tool the detail is largely earned.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the critical output behaviors: pptx_url always returned, dry_run validation manifest, policy failure returning rejected/cost:0, and deck_id==job_id for polling. It does not give a full response shape or explicit worked example, but what an agent needs to invoke and monitor the call correctly is present.

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?

With 88% schema coverage, the schema already carries the baseline, and the description adds value on top: it explains that slides are create_slide intents, that assemble/fork have free/no-retheme semantics, and that deck-level parameters inherit with slide-level wins. It doesn't fully document every parameter (e.g., title, theme_id), but it meaningfully enriches the high-leverage ones.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a complete PowerPoint presentation (.pptx): a whole multi-slide deck, native and editable, in one call.' It differentiates from create_slide by emphasizing multi-slide and one-call deck construction, and further clarifies what the deck includes (cover, dividers, closing, page numbers).

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 concrete mode guidance: render vs mode=assemble (merge job_ids as-rendered, theme_id does not re-theme) vs mode=fork, and points to manage_account for polling and browse_catalog for blocked new forms. It does not explicitly state when to prefer create_slide or plan_slide, though the 'multi-slide deck' framing implies the boundary.

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