delete_slide

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

The description goes far beyond the single readOnlyHint:false annotation by disclosing garbage-collection behavior, neutered jump links, atomic saving with two-slot backup, and the unsafe 'UNSAVED until live_save' live-editing caveat. This is exactly the behavioral risk context an agent needs for a destructive 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?

Three dense sentences cover the core action, side effects, alternatives, backup semantics, and live-editing behavior without fluff. The most critical destructive effects are front-loaded, and every clause adds operational value.

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 destructive tool with complex side effects, the description is complete: it covers what gets removed, how to avoid permanent deletion, backup behavior, locked-file behavior, and the live-saving implication. With an output schema present, the lack of return-value detail is not a gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It defines the slide parameter's accepted forms ('0-based index or {"slide_id": N}'), explains backup=False behavior, and clarifies live mode values. This turns potentially ambiguous schema properties into actionable semantics.

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 opens with the specific action 'Delete a slide' and names the resource, then elaborates the destructive scope: notes, charts, embeddings, comments, custom-show references, section membership, and jump links. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling slide operations like insert_slide, duplicate_slide, and reorder_slides.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer set_slide_hidden when the slide might come back, giving a concrete alternative for a common scenario. The live parameter values 'auto', 'force', and 'off' also explain when each mode applies, including the locked-file case.

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