slides_copy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not say where the copy is placed, whether sharing/permissions carry over, what identifier is returned, or whether the source deck is unaffected. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action and the key qualifier front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate but does not. It omits the return value (presumably a new presentation id), the copy's destination, and any cross-account implications of the 'account' parameter.

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 67%: 'deck' and 'account' are documented in the schema, while 'title' has no description. The phrase 'with a new title' does clarify that title names the resulting copy rather than the source, adding modest value, but it gives no format or length guidance.

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 ('Make a copy of a presentation') and adds the scope qualifier 'with a new title'. It is immediately clear what the tool does, though it never differentiates itself from siblings like slides_create or docs_copy.

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 guidance on when to use this versus slides_create (a fresh deck) or slides_rename (retitling an existing deck). No prerequisites, no mention of the account parameter's relevance to cross-account copying.

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