Reorder Slides

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: durable slide_ids and view anchors survive reordering while plain indices do not, saves are atomic with two-slot backup, and backup=False skips rotation. This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and safety controls without contradicting the 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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the core operation and immediately giving the critical permutation constraint. Every sentence adds necessary operational or routing detail, and there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 reordering operation with destructive implications, the description covers the full call contract: scope, permutation rule, behavior of identifiers, backup semantics, and the simpler alternative for single-slide moves. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not required here, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, but the description compensates well for the two key parameters: order is explained as a permutation where every current 0-based index must appear exactly once and partial lists are refused, and backup is tied to the two-slot backup rotation behavior. file_path is not described, but its meaning is conventional and the schema marks it as a required string.

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 further clarifies the scope by requiring a full permutation of all slide indices and explicitly contrasts with single-slide moves via move_slide, distinguishing it from sibling tools like insert_slide, delete_slide, and duplicate_slide.

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 states when to use this tool versus move_slide: use reorder_slides for whole-deck rearrangement, and move_slide for moving a single slide. It also gives concrete activation instructions for the alternative via enable_tools(packs=['design']), so an agent knows the exact routing decision.

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