document.copy_slide

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: the clipboard persists across calls, and indices default to the current slide. It leaves open whether a copy replaces prior clipboard contents and how invalid indices are handled.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the caveat/alternative last where an agent will still read it.

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 one-param, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, it covers purpose, default, persistence, and the unsupported cut case. The remaining gap is clipboard-displacement semantics versus the separate shape clipboard, which an agent might want to know.

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 0% with a single optional parameter, so the description must compensate; it does by supplying the default (`[current]`), which the schema does not. It adds no further detail on ordering or empty-array behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 ('Copy whole slides') and pins the destination as the 'slide-level clipboard', which implicitly separates it from the generic document.copy/paste shape-level siblings. The reader knows exactly what lands where without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly rules out cut and names the alternative two-step path (duplicate_slide + delete_slides), which is strong routing. It doesn't state the inverse case (when to prefer duplicate_slide over copy+paste), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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