add_slide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone; it does disclose two non-obvious side effects (placeholder text pre-filled, shapes renamed to semantic layout names) and the return payload. It omits error/permission behavior and the rejection of `_`-prefixed layouts (which lives only in the schema), leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the prerequisite, then the return value — no filler and no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining what comes back (new slide index and placeholder shapes with semantic names). Combined with a fully documented input schema, only mutation safety/error context 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 100% and each parameter is thoroughly documented there, including the zero-based insertion semantics and case-insensitive layout matching. The description restates layout/placeholder concepts at a high level without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Add a new slide from a layout") plus the scope details that separate it from sibling `duplicate_slide` (new-from-layout rather than copy-existing). It doesn't explicitly name `duplicate_slide` as the alternative, but the resource and mechanism are unambiguous.

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?

"Use inspect_layouts to find available layout names and placeholder names" gives an explicit prerequisite workflow before calling, which is the main usage question for this tool. No exclusion/alternative cases are stated, so it stops short of a 5.

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