duplicar_diapositiva

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the copy is an independent object set editable via mover_objeto and that the original remains untouched for the transition, but it omits whether the response returns the new slide index, whether notes/animations are copied, and whether an open document is required.

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 tight sentences, zero filler. The core behavior is front-loaded and the workflow hint follows it rather than burying it.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive structural tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and how it fits the Magic Move pattern. The main residual gap is return value (new slide number) and whether slide content such as notes or animations is carried over.

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 both parameters (documento, diapositiva) are already documented with examples and 1-based indexing. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the concept of a source slide, 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 (duplicar una diapositiva) and adds the key placement semantic: the copy lands immediately after the original. This clearly distinguishes it from agregar_diapositiva, though it never names that sibling explicitly as the alternative.

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?

Frames the tool as the first step of a Magic Move workflow and names the concrete follow-up actions (mover_objeto on the copy, magic move transition on the original). It gives clear context for when to reach for it, but offers no exclusion conditions or prerequisites (e.g., presentation must be open).

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