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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the irreversibility is known without the description. The description does add one genuinely new behavioral fact — that child slides are deleted along with the presentation — but says nothing about permissions, confirmation, or what is returned on success.

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 filler, front-loading the permanence and the cascade. It is efficient, though the terse phrasing leaves no room for the routing hints an agent would benefit from.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and explicit destructive annotations, the only information an agent lacks from structured fields is the cascade behavior, which the description supplies. Nothing essential is missing, though an irreversible-action warning would strengthen it.

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% and the single `id` parameter already documents its origin (create_presentation / list_presentations) and positivity constraint. The description adds no syntax, format, or accepted-value detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a specific verb ("Supprimer définitivement") and resource ("une présentation") and adds the cascade scope ("et ses diapositives"), which distinguishes it from delete_slide and rename_presentation. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

"Définitivement" implies caution before use, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no pointer to delete_slide for removing a single slide, and no stated prerequisites or confirmation step. Usage must be inferred from the name and the word "permanently".

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