Move a PowerPoint slide to a new position by specifying its source and destination indexes, so you can reorder slides in a presentation.
Move a slide to a new position.
Args: from_index: Zero-based index of the slide to move. to_index: Zero-based destination index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_index | Yes | ||
| from_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It does not say whether the move is persisted to disk or only in memory, whether it requires an open presentation, what happens on out-of-range indices, or whether indices shift after removal.
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 text is short and front-loaded, with the purpose stated before the Args block. The Args listing is functional rather than wasteful, though the docstring-style formatting is slightly verbose for a two-parameter tool.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the minimum: what it does and what the parameters mean. It is missing the behavioral context an agent needs to call it safely, notably persistence, error behavior on invalid indices, and index-shift semantics.
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% (only bare titles 'From Index'/'To Index'), so the description must compensate, and it does add the key fact that both indices are zero-based and which one is the source versus destination. However, it omits the critical ambiguity for a move operation: whether to_index is interpreted before or after the slide is removed from its original position.
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+resource: 'Move a slide to a new position.' That is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like add_slide, duplicate_slide, and delete_slide. It stops short of naming how it differs from neighboring reordering operations, but the purpose is clear.
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 guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that a presentation must be open), and no mention of alternatives such as duplicate_slide followed by delete_slide. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Move'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.