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

It reveals behavior beyond annotations: 'One write for the filmstrip' signals atomicity/scope, and 'Insert rasters an empty named template unless sourceIndex copies a slide' describes a non-obvious default. Annotations already handle idempotency and non-destructive status, so this is appropriate supplementary disclosure.

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 sentences, with the operation list front-loaded and the nuanced insert behavior isolated in the second sentence. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

The definition is too sparse for a 9-parameter mutation with 11% schema coverage: it does not clarify how from/to/index map to operations, what idempotencyKey should be, or how workspaceId interacts with projectId. Output schema exists, so return-value docs are not needed, but call construction remains underspecified.

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 only 11% schema coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning but only hints at templateId ('named template') and sourceIndex ('copies a slide'). Positional semantics for to, from, and index, plus workspaceId and idempotencyKey, are left completely unexplained, and 'duplicate' is listed even though op's enum omits it.

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 enumerates a specific action set ('Reorder, remove, insert, duplicate, or undo slides') on a clear resource ('compiled carousel'), so an agent can tell this is a structural slide-level patch rather than a single-slide edit. It does not explicitly contrast with carousels_patch_slide, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'on a compiled carousel' gives a context clue, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like carousels_patch_slide, carousels_compile, or carousels_get. No when-not conditions or alternative names are provided.

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