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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful side-effect disclosure — 'Links that led to it stop leading anywhere' — which is not derivable from annotations, but it says nothing about reversibility (restore_version exists) or the conflict behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

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, zero filler, with the action stated first and the consequence second. Every clause earns its place.

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, annotations cover the safety profile, and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the description need not restate returns or field meanings. What is missing is guidance on when deletion is appropriate versus editing or restoring, and any note on whether the deletion is recoverable.

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%, with slug, slide_id, and the optional base_version all fully explained in the schema itself, including the 409 conflict semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a slide of your presentation), which cleanly separates it from delete_presentation, delete_comment, and delete_project by resource type. It never explicitly contrasts with the neighboring slide-mutating tools (add_slide, update_slide, edit_slides), 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as update_slide or restore_version. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the sibling list.

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