document.remove_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 disclose one meaningful behavior: the operation is refused if the deck would become empty. It does not say what error/signal is returned on refusal, whether deletion is reversible (undo exists as a sibling), or how index interacts with ordering from document.list_slides.

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 tight sentences with the operation front-loaded and the guard clause second; nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

Given a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key safety constraint but omits success behavior, error signaling, and index-ordering semantics. It is minimally adequate rather than complete for an unannotated destructive operation.

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% and the single 'index' property has no description, so the description's 'by index' is doing real work by naming the selector. However, it doesn't clarify zero-based indexing or the valid range (the schema's minimum: 0 only implies the lower bound), leaving a gap an agent could hit.

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 ('Delete a slide') plus the selector ('by index'), which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling document.delete_slides (plural/bulk), so an agent must infer the singular-vs-batch split from the names alone.

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 singular 'slide' suggests a single-target operation versus delete_slides, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The empty-deck refusal hints at a precondition but is framed as behavior, not as routing guidance.

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