delete_slide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is 'pure file removal + reindex', involves no LLM call, and returns a JSON with project_id and new slide_count. It also notes the necessity to refresh HTML afterward. This level of detail is excellent for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is very concise, using a few sentences plus bullet points for parameters and return. The most critical information (action, params, return, post-call) is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (delete a slide with two required parameters, an output schema inferred from the return description), the description covers all essentials: what it does, how to use it, what to expect back, and a necessary follow-up action. There is no obvious missing information for an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so clearly: project_id as 'Target project ID (required)' and slide_index as 'Slide position to delete (1-based).' These descriptions add essential meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 explicitly states 'Deletes a slide' with the verb 'deletes' and resource 'slide'. It adds 'No LLM call — pure file removal + reindex', which confirms the nature of the action. Though it does not explicitly compare to siblings, the verb and resource are unambiguous and clearly differentiate from other tools like move_slide.

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 includes a post-use instruction ('After this call, call export_html...'), which provides some workflow guidance. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., move_slide for reordering, or capturing slides). No explicit when-not or alternative comparisons are given.

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