slides_reorder_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. It only states the core operation without disclosing side effects (e.g., other slides reindexing), permissions, or reversibility. The 0-based detail is useful but does not cover key behavioral aspects expected of 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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core action but omits important context such as valid index ranges or the effect on other slides. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 0%, but the description compensates by implicitly mapping slide_id ('a slide'), presentation_id ('the presentation'), and insertion_index ('0-based position'). It adds the crucial detail that the insertion index is 0-based, which is not present in the schema.

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'), the resource ('a slide'), and the context ('in the presentation'), with the specific detail of a '0-based position'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like slides_add_slide, slides_delete_slide, and slides_duplicate_slide.

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 implicitly indicates usage (when you need to move a slide to a new position), but it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as slides_duplicate_slide or slides_update_element_transform. It lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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