r7_slide_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that reorder rewrites no slide part so slide content is unaffected, but it is silent on the destructive/irreversible nature of delete, whether duplicate deep-copies or shares parts, and in-place vs. outputPath write behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste; the action list is front-loaded and the safety note on reorder follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operations and the index-based addressing model but omits critical behavioral context an agent needs: that delete permanently removes a slide and that outputPath can protect the source. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter (order, toIndex, fromIndex, position, slideIndex). The description only adds the addressing model, 'Slides are addressed by their position in the deck,' which is helpful but minimal; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Change the structure of a PPTX deck') and enumerates the four exact operations (duplicate, move, reorder, delete). This scope cleanly separates it from sibling tools like r7_slide_create, r7_slide_format, and r7_slide_object, which touch content or formatting rather than slide ordering.

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?

The description implies when each action applies by naming them, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives (e.g., use r7_slide_read first to find slide positions, or r7_slide_create instead of duplicate). The distinction between 'move' and 'reorder' is left to the reader.

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