Regroup the slide grid

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that validation happens up front and atomically ('before anything changes'), that bad ids are refused and listed by id, that no slide is ever removed, and what the call returns. It also flags the scope/auth caveat ('Editors: Slides only, unverified'), which the annotations do not carry. Nothing here contradicts readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false or idempotentHint=true.

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?

One dense paragraph, but front-loaded with the core action and validation rule before the alternative-tool routing. Every clause carries information, though the semicolon-chained packing makes it slightly harder to scan than an ideally structured definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the return-value burden and does so ('the rows as they are afterwards, how many slides moved and rows were renamed, and rows left empty or removed'). Combined with atomicity, validation and editor-scope caveats, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 67% and the description closes much of the gap with cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: the 'every slide exactly once' invariant, row ordering, and the 1–3 word name convention with '' restoring the default label. It does not add anything about `session`, but that gap is minor relative to what it does explain.

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+resource+scope: 'Restate a whole Figma Slides deck's grouping in one step'. It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (figma_move_slides for partial moves, figma_rename_node for single-section renames), so an agent can pick it without opening another schema.

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 explicit when-to-use routing ('To move a few slides without restating the deck use figma_move_slides') and a named alternative for the adjacent task ('to rename one section use figma_rename_node on its row id'). It also states the precondition (every slide exactly once) that selects this tool over the incremental siblings.

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