Keynote: move slide

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: dry_run runs on a throwaway copy, executes every check, and returns what would change without touching the file. It does not state whether a committed move is reversible or what the returned change payload contains, leaving a small gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the positional contract before the dry_run preview and the sibling redirect. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information.

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 no exposition, and all four parameters are documented. The description covers mutation risk via dry_run and the sibling routing; the only shortfall is not noting reversibility or ordering side effects when the destination index is out of range.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by restating both slide and to as 1-based positions and by explaining dry_run's semantics beyond the schema's own wording. It adds orientation that helps prevent off-by-one index errors.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource (move slide) and defines both positional arguments including their indexing base. It clearly separates itself from the copy-oriented sibling by naming keynote_duplicate_slide as the tool for copying rather than moving.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use to reorder slides' and then names the alternative tool (keynote_duplicate_slide) for the adjacent use case of copying to a new position. The dry_run guidance ('Use it before broad or risky edits and show the user') gives concrete invocation advice.

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