Append one or more slides to an existing presentation (slides, powerpoint, deck, keynote).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Presentation ID | |
| slide | No | Single slide to append | |
| slides | No | Array of slides to append | |
| position | No | 0-based position to insert at (appends to end if omitted) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('append') but does not mention side effects, error behavior, permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. The description lacks details on what happens if the presentation ID is invalid or how the 'position' parameter affects the result beyond the schema.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core functionality. The parenthetical '(slides, powerpoint, deck, keynote)' adds some redundancy but may help users recognize the resource type. No wasted words beyond that.
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 has nested objects (slide/slides) and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to choose between 'slide' and 'slides', or the semantics of 'position' (though the schema covers the latter). For a mutation tool with this complexity, more context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
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?
The input schema fully documents all parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat their meaning. The description does add the notion of 'one or more slides', which aligns with the 'slide' and 'slides' parameters, but it does not clarify the relationship between them (e.g., mutual exclusivity). Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('slides to an existing presentation'), clearly indicating the action and target. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_slide_presentation' (which creates a new presentation) and 'append_rows' (which targets sheets). The parenthetical synonyms further clarify the resource type.
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 'existing presentation' clearly implies this tool is for modifying an already-created presentation, not for creating one. This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tool names provide additional context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: document, sheet, tab, or presentation. Even similar operations like append_rows, append_slides, and append_to_document are clearly differentiated by their intended target.
The naming follows a predictable verb_noun pattern with create_, get_, list_, update_, delete_, and append_. Minor deviations like append_to_document (uses 'to') and the use of 'slide_presentation' vs 'slides' keep it from being perfectly uniform.
At 23 tools, the count is slightly above the ideal range, but each tool serves a clear purpose across three resource types (documents, sheets, slides). The volume is justified by supporting tab-level operations and append functionality.
The server provides full CRUD plus listing for each resource type, along with tab management and append operations. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of a direct 'set cell value' operation and no slide reorder or delete individual slide, but core workflows are well covered.