Move slides

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description still adds rich behavior: an anchor that is itself being moved is refused before any change (atomicity), every slide stays in the deck, an emptied row persists as an empty section listed in emptiedRows, and per-slide results are returned. This goes well beyond the structured safety hints.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and anchor options lead, followed by edge-case behavior, return shape, and the sibling pointer. Every sentence carries information, though the single block paragraph is somewhat heavy.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return ('per-slide results with the new row, col and index'), the atomicity guarantee, side effects on emptied rows, permissions scope, and the alternative tool. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter, but the description adds real semantic detail: exactly one anchor must be chosen, row/col are counted after the moved slides are removed, and the row count opens a new last row. It clarifies interplay between row, col, and the anchor ids beyond the field-level descriptions.

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 (move) and resource (slides) with clear scope: moving slides within a Figma Slides deck as one ordered block to a single anchor. It explicitly names the sibling figma_set_slide_grid as the tool for a different operation, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete routing ('To restate the whole deck's grouping use figma_set_slide_grid') and enumerates the mutually exclusive anchor modes (after/before/row), which tells the agent how to invoke it. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites beyond 'Editors: Slides only'.

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