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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one real behavioral consequence beyond annotations: 'Links that led to it stop leading anywhere,' which discloses a cascade side effect. However, it omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and whether deletion can be undone via restore_version, so it adds only partial value on top of 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a consequence. No filler or redundancy. The second sentence is slightly informal ('stop leading anywhere') but remains efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the destructive safety profile. The description adds the link-breakage side effect, but for a destructive operation it could still note irreversibility or recovery. Nearly complete given the structured fields.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both slug and slide_id are already documented in the schema, including the useful note that slide_id is stable while position changes. The description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Delete a slide of your presentation.' This clearly distinguishes it from delete_presentation, though the description does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update_slide or reorder_slides. Clear but no sibling differentiation in text.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. There is no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus reordering or updating a slide, nor any warning about when not to use it.

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