duplicate_slideCreate an exact copy of a slide and optionally place it at a specific index in the presentation.
Duplicate a slide, optionally moving the copy to an index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slideId | Yes | Slide (page) object ID from get_presentation or list_slides | |
| insertionIndex | No | Where the duplicate should be placed | |
| presentationId | Yes | Presentation ID. Found in the Google Slides URL: docs.google.com/presentation/d/<ID>/edit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining that this creates a new slide alongside the original. It doesn't say whether the copy lands adjacent by default, whether notes/formatting/elements are copied, or what a caller gets back. Almost nothing beyond the name is disclosed.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.
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 output schema, the description should at minimum state default placement and what is returned (presumably the new slide's ID, which the agent needs for follow-up calls). It covers the core action but leaves those operationally important details 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 100%, so the schema already defines all three parameters including the URL-based ID lookup and index bounds. The phrase 'moving the copy to an index' adds slight semantic nuance about what insertionIndex controls, but stops short of describing default placement behavior.
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 (duplicate) and resource (slide), which cleanly separates it from add_slide, move_slide, and reorder_slides. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the verb alone tells an agent what the tool does.
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?
No guidance on when to duplicate versus adding a new slide or reordering existing ones, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens when insertionIndex is omitted. The 'optionally' hints at a default placement but never states it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.