delete_presentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a presentation from memory' states the action but does not disclose permanence, cascading effects on associated slides, or any confirmation/authorization requirements. This is a significant gap 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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-parameter delete tool, the description and schema cover the essential purpose and parameter. However, the lack of behavioral context such as reversibility, side effects, or return behavior leaves it adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with the description 'The ID of the presentation to delete', so the description adds no additional parameter context. The parameter is straightforward and self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'a presentation' with the qualifier 'from memory', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_presentation, save_presentation, and list_presentations. The action and target are unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the name and action, but there are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the context inferable but not articulated.

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