move_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions moving a slide but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwriting slides at the target position), what permissions are required, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid positions), or the expected outcome (e.g., reordering slides). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and the result of the operation, which are critical for safe and effective use. The description does not compensate for the absence of structured data, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 does not add any meaning beyond what the input schema provides, as schema description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema adequately documents the parameters, and the description doesn't compensate or elaborate further, but it also doesn't detract from the schema's clarity.

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 clearly states the action ('move') and resource ('a slide'), specifying the operation involves changing position. It's specific enough to understand the core function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'move_element' or 'duplicate_slide' among the siblings.

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 'move_element' (for moving elements within slides) or 'duplicate_slide' (for copying slides). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an open presentation, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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