Append a new slide to the active PowerPoint deck, optionally at a given index and with a title, and return the new slide index.
Append a new slide. Returns the new slide index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | -1 = append | |
| title | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says that a new slide is appended and that the new index is returned; it omits whether the slide is blank, whether the title is applied, whether changes are persisted, and any permission or error conditions.
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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and a useful return-value note. It is concise, though brevity here contributes to under-specification rather than clarity.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, this description is too thin. It should clarify insertion semantics and the effect of the title parameter to be sufficient.
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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter meaning. It does not explain that index values other than -1 may control insertion position, and it says nothing about the title parameter, which has no schema description either.
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: "Append a new slide." This distinguishes it from siblings like document.duplicate_slide or document.add_shape, but the word "append" understates the schema's index parameter, which implies insertion at a specific position is also possible.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as document.duplicate_slide, document.copy_slide, or document.paste_slide. It also does not mention prerequisites like having an open document.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.