document.duplicate_slide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does deliver one genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: processing runs highest-index first so earlier insertions don't shift later targets. However, it omits where duplicates land relative to originals, whether the operation is undoable, and whether it mutates the document irreversibly.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the secondary ordering detail. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior but leaves the agent guessing about placement of new slides, index base, and return value. It is adequate rather than complete.

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% for the single 'indices' array, so the description must compensate. Saying 'at the given indices' plus the ordering note implies indices refer to original positions, which is useful, but it never states zero- vs one-based indexing or whether order of the supplied list matters.

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?

Clear specific verb (Duplicate) plus resource (slides) with a noted batch scope ("at the given indices"), which separates it from the single-slide document.copy_slide/document.paste_slide pair. It never explicitly names those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 choose this over document.copy_slide + document.paste_slide or document.duplicate. The agent must infer that this tool is for batch duplication, and there is no mention of prerequisites (open document, valid index range) or exclusions.

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