park_slides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions '1 API call' and 'mark skipped', but does not disclose potential side effects, recovery options, required permissions, or rate limits. The description lacks sufficient detail about the tool's behavioral traits.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value: stating the action and efficiency, explaining the purpose, and giving a usage pattern. There is no redundant information.

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 description covers the core usage but is incomplete. It references 'prune_parked_slides' but not 'unpark_slides', which is a related sibling. It does not mention the return value or any prerequisites. Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required params, related siblings), the description is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% coverage from the description. The description does not explain what 'presentation_id' or 'slide_ids' represent or provide format details. While the context implies slide_ids are the slides to hide, no explicit mapping is given, so the description adds minimal meaning beyond 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 verb ('Hide slides (mark skipped)') and the resource, and distinguishes from siblings by specifying that slides stay as a clone source. It also references the related tool 'prune_parked_slides' for cleanup.

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 clear guidance on when to use: to keep slides as a reusable palette while hiding them from presentation mode. It explicitly suggests duplicating from these slides and then calling 'prune_parked_slides' at the end. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'unpark_slides'.

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