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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them — skipped hides without deleting, moveTo causes other slides to shift, and notes replaces existing notes. It does not describe error behavior or whether moveTo/skipped can be combined in one call, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, then a tight enumeration of the four mutation modes, then two routing sentences. No filler; every clause maps to a parameter or a sibling 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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers all operationally meaningful parameters and the destructive/visibility semantics. The only unaddressed item is the workspace parameter, which the schema already handles fully, so nothing critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: moveTo is 1-based and other slides shift around the moved slide, and skipped affects present mode and exports. The workspace parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its detailed description there.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Changes one slide as a whole') and then enumerates the exact scopes of change: position, visibility, slide number, speaker notes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from napkin_slide_fill and napkin_draw, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when/when-not routing: use this for whole-slide properties, use napkin_slide_fill or napkin_draw to change slide content, and use napkin_deck_outline to obtain slide numbers. Both the alternative and the condition that selects it are named.

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