delete_slide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a slide' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletions are permanent, error conditions (e.g., invalid slide number), or what happens to subsequent slide numbering. For a destructive tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words—it's maximally concise and front-loaded. Every word ('Delete a slide') earns its place by conveying the core action without fluff or ambiguity.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (e.g., permanence, side effects), error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool in a presentation context with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters are documented in the schema), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't explain interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'doc_name' defaults work) or usage nuances, but the schema adequately covers the basics.

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 'Delete a slide' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (slide), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_element' (more specific) and 'clear_slide' (different action), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling-specific nuance.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_element' or 'clear_slide', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open presentation) or exclusions. It's a bare statement of function with no contextual usage information.

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