Add a slide

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent), so the description's job is to add traits beyond that — and it does, with "The deck is linted afterwards," which signals a post-write validation step the agent should expect. It also distinguishes what belongs in `content` vs `frontmatter` vs `notes`, though it does not say where lint errors surface or whether a failed lint rolls back the insert.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then one clause per parameter, with no filler sentences. The density is high but readable; the [click] marker aside is slightly granular yet directly actionable.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the required input, the insertion-point semantics, and the post-write lint step. The remaining gap is minor: no mention of what the lint does on failure or of prerequisites such as the deck already existing at `dir`.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by adding meaning the schema lacks — `content` must omit separators/frontmatter, `frontmatter` carries layout options with a concrete example ({ layout: 'two-cols' }), and `notes` supports [click] pacing markers. Only `dir` is left entirely to the schema, and `at`/`vertical` are largely restated rather than extended.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Insert a new slide." That is unambiguous and clearly distinct in kind from slide_update or slide_move. However, it never names a sibling or states the boundary (e.g. 'use slide_update to edit an existing slide'), so differentiation is left to inference.

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 only implied: the verb 'insert' plus 'default: the end' tells the agent this appends or splices a new slide into a deck. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives such as slide_move or slide_update for existing slides.

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