wps_wpp_duplicate_slide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the placement behavior (after original) and that it returns the new index. However, it does not mention any side effects, required permissions, or error handling (e.g., what happens if slide_index is out of bounds). The transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the return value is stated. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers the core behavior and return value. It could mention that the slide must exist or that the index is 0-based, but these are minor omissions for a clear, simple tool.

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 already describes the parameter 'slide_index' with a Chinese description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage context for the parameter. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description provides no extra value.

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 explicitly states the action 'duplicate', the resource 'slide', and the effect 'new page follows immediately after the original page'. It also mentions the return value 'new_slide_index'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_slide' (adds blank slide) or 'delete_slide'.

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 implies usage (to duplicate a slide) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wps_wpp_add_slide' or 'wps_wpp_move_slide'. No prerequisites or context for when not to use it are given.

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