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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it does not say how other slides shift, whether the moved slide keeps its content, what happens with out-of-range indices, or whether the change is undoable via deck_undo_turn. For a mutation tool, that is a notable gap even with annotations present.

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?

A single short sentence with zero padding and the action front-loaded. It earns its brevity, though the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral information noted elsewhere.

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 3-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: the action and targets are clear and annotations convey the safety profile. It lacks any statement of effect on sibling slide ordering, failure modes, or prerequisite state, which an agent would want before reordering a deck.

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%, with both `slide` and `to` documented as 1-based positions, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's phrase "to another position" echoes the `to` parameter without adding format, boundary, or indexing details beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Moves a slide to another position" states a specific verb (moves) and resource (slide) plus the direction of the operation, which cleanly separates it from siblings like deck_insert_slide, deck_delete_slide, and deck_edit_slide. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g., document must be open, slide must exist), and no comparison to reordering alternatives. The agent must infer all of this from the name and schema alone.

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