Insert Slide

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

Adds rich behavioral detail beyond the annotations: atomic saves, two-slot backup rotation, backup=False semantics, and the live='auto'/'force'/'off' behavior including the UNSAVED caveat until live_save. This is far more transparent than annotations alone provide.

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?

Extremely information-dense with no filler, but presented as a single run-on paragraph that mixes parameter guidance, behavioral caveats, and workflow context. A structured format would improve scannability without adding length.

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?

Covers all parameters, deck creation scope, backup behavior, locked-file live modes, and layout enumeration. With an output schema available on the tool, no essential operational detail appears to be missing for correct 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: layout is explained as name or index with enumeration hint, position has 0-based and default-end semantics, backup and live parameters are detailed, and file_path is self-evident from context.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a slide built from a layout', and clarifies the layout-based placeholder skeleton behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_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?

Provides clear operational context: whole decks start via create_presentation, layouts can be listed with list_elements kind='layouts', and live mode behavior is specified for locked files. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' statement for most sisters, so it is strong but not maximal.

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