Delete Slide

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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=true, but the description goes beyond that by detailing the exact side effects: garbage collection of notes, charts, embeddings, comments, custom-show references, section membership, and neutering jump links. It also explains atomic saves with two-slot backup and the behavior of backup=False and live modes. This adds substantial context not present in annotations, especially for a destructive tool where such transparency is critical. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise but packed with essential information. It front-loads the primary action and side effects, then covers parameter specifics. Each sentence has purpose: the first covers delete semantics, the second covers the slide parameter, the third gives usage guidance, and the fourth covers backup and live behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive, with side effects, multiple modes, output schema exists), the description is remarkably complete. It covers what is deleted, how to specify the target, backup behavior, live editing modes, and when to use an alternative. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Nothing critical is missing for safe invocation.

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 carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It explains 'slide' format (0-based index or object with slide_id), 'backup' effect (skips rotation when False), and 'live' values and meanings. It does not explicitly explain 'file_path', but that is a common parameter and likely self-explanatory given the tool name. Thus, it compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Delete a slide' with garbage collection) and specifies the target via 'slide' parameter. It mentions the scope of cleanup (notes, charts, embeddings, etc.) which distinguishes it from simpler delete operations. The verb 'delete' plus the resource 'slide' is specific, and the mention of garbage collection sets it apart from potential sibling tools like 'duplicate_slide' or '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?

The description explicitly says 'Prefer set_slide_hidden (design pack) when it might come back', providing a clear alternative and the condition for using it. It also explains the 'live' parameter values ('auto', 'force', 'off') and their implications, giving the agent concrete guidance on when to use each. This is exemplary usage guidance for a destructive tool.

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