borrar_diapositiva

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It confirms this is a destructive delete and adds the useful detail that hidden template prototype slides are protected, but omits whether deletion is permanent/undoable, what happens to objects on the slide, and required document state.

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 short sentences with the core action first and the constraint second. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover irreversibility, side effects, and error conditions. It only notes the prototype-slide protection, leaving the most consequential behavioral facts for the agent to guess.

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 100%, so both parameters (documento and diapositiva, with 1-based indexing) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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+resource: 'Borra una diapositiva' clearly identifies deletion of a slide, distinct from siblings like ocultar_diapositiva or mover_diapositiva. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the operation itself is 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?

The only guidance is a constraint ('Los prototipos ocultos de la plantilla están protegidos'), which tells the agent one case that fails. There is no indication of when to delete versus hide (ocultar_diapositiva), whether the operation is reversible, or any prerequisites.

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