Delete any slide from a presentation project by its slide ID, keeping the deck accurate.
Delete an individual slide from a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slide_id | Yes | Slide ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does 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. It states that a slide is deleted but does not indicate whether deletion is permanent, whether related resources are affected, or whether any confirmation or project-level checks apply.
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?
A single, clear sentence communicates the operation with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the basic operation. However, because there are no annotations and no guidance on behavior or context, an agent is left to infer important details about the deletion process.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents slide_id. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond 'Slide ID to delete', but the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('an individual slide from a project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_project or update_slide. It names exactly what is acted upon and the scope.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_project, update_slide, or list_slides. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.