delete_slide

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a destructive mutation but never states that the deletion is permanent/irreversible, that indices of subsequent slides shift down, whether a save is required, or what happens on an out-of-range index.

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?

Two short lines with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter note immediately after; nothing is wasted. The 'Args:' docstring formatting is slightly mechanical but harmless.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the core call correctly but omits irreversibility, index-shift side effects, and post-delete save requirements. Those are the details an agent most needs before invoking a delete.

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 coverage is 0% — the schema only gives 'type: integer, title: Index' with no description. The description compensates by explaining that the value is a zero-based index of the slide to delete, which is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs (off-by-one errors are the main risk here).

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 uses a precise verb+resource ('Delete a slide') and names the scope ('from the current presentation'), which lets an agent distinguish it from add_slide, duplicate_slide, and move_slide. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it lands just under the top mark.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites such as needing an open presentation or saving afterward. The only context is the implied one that a slide exists at the given index.

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