copy_slides

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key traits: the transfer is server-side, Base64 never enters context, and export+insert happen in one operation. It omits failure behavior, whether the destination is modified destructively, and what the caller receives back.

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 tightly packed sentences, each earning its place: what it does, the context-saving mechanism, and the operational prerequisites. The most useful fact (server-side, no Base64 in context) is front-loaded.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers mechanism and prerequisites well. It leaves a small gap around return value and what happens to the destination deck's existing state on insert.

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% — every parameter, including the formatting enum and slide ID format, is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond restating that both presentations are involved, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Copies slides between two open presentations') with the crucial qualifier 'entirely server-side'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like duplicate_slide (in-deck copy) and get_local_copy, since the operation crosses document boundaries.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites: both presentations must be connected to the bridge and PowerPointApi 1.8 is required. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with duplicate_slide or explain when copying would be preferable to export/import alternatives.

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