reorder_slides

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: atomic save with two-slot backup, backup=False skipping rotation, durable slide_ids surviving reordering while plain indices do not, and validation rejecting partial lists. This gives the agent important expectations about side effects and persistence.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds either parameter semantics, an alternative tool, or behavioral side effects. No filler or repetition exists.

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 tool with three parameters, mutation semantics, and validation constraints, the description covers all essential aspects: required permutation, index semantics, backup behavior, and when to use a different tool. An output schema exists, so not describing the return value is acceptable.

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 carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains the order parameter as a complete permutation of current 0-based indices, and explains backup semantics including the default rotation behavior. file_path is left to its name, but it is self-explanatory in 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rearrange the whole deck in one call.' It clearly communicates the scope (whole deck), the operation (reorder), and differentiates itself from one-slide moves by explicitly pointing to move_slide as the simpler tool for that case.

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 states when to use this tool (reordering the entire deck) and provides an explicit alternative: 'For moving ONE slide, move_slide in the design pack is simpler.' It also specifies that partial lists are refused, so the agent knows a full permutation is required.

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