Add a slide

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it reveals the underlying batchUpdate createSlide call, the returned objectId, the default layout behavior when neither layout option is provided, and that inherited placeholders arrive empty. This gives the agent a realistic model of side effects without contradicting the readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false, or openWorldHint=true 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: main action and return, layout selection options with the mutual-exclusion rule, insertion position semantics, and the downstream placeholder workflow. It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information and contains no filler.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all parameter choices, return behavior, default behavior, and the natural follow-up actions. The agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and knows what to expect in the reply, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

Though the schema already describes all parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds crucial relationship semantics: predefined_layout and layout_object_id are mutually exclusive, omitting both copies the last slide's layout, and insertion_index is 0-based with omission meaning append. This is precisely the kind of inter-parameter meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Adds a slide (batchUpdate createSlide)' and states the key return value, the new slide's objectId. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like duplicate_slide and delete_object by focusing on creating a fresh slide from a layout or copying the current last slide's layout.

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 clear context for when to use this tool—when adding a new slide—and explains how to choose a layout via predefined_layout or layout_object_id from list_layouts, including the 'not both' exclusion. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like duplicate_slide, but it does route subsequent actions to list_slides and set_text, giving the agent a clear workflow.

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