mover_diapositiva

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the sentinel case (0 = at the beginning) and that the new slide number is returned, but does not explain what happens to the indices of intervening slides, whether the operation requires the presentation to be open, or any failure mode for out-of-range positions.

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, both load-bearing: the first defines the operation and its positioning semantics, the second defines the return value. Nothing is wasted and the core behavior 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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, the zero-index special case, and the return value. Only the side effects on surrounding slide indices are left unstated.

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% and the one undocumented parameter, despues_de, is exactly the one the description clarifies with "0 = al principio", which the bare minimum:0 schema alone would not make obvious. The description reinforces that diapositiva is the slide being relocated.

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 ("Mueve una diapositiva") plus the precise target position semantic ("para que quede después de otra"). An agent can distinguish it from mover_objeto and duplicar_diapositiva, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the definition — reorder a slide relative to another — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternatives such as duplicar_diapositiva or mover_objeto. The agent must infer the reordering context.

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