document.reorder_slide

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important 0-based convention, but omits that this is a mutation with side effects, whether it is undoable, and what happens on out-of-range indices or when src == dst.

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?

A single dense sentence with the operation and the index convention front-loaded, no filler. It borders on under-specification rather than verbosity, but every word present earns its place.

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?

A 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs to explain side effects, index bounds and dst semantics. The description covers only the index base, leaving an agent likely to guess wrong about the resulting position.

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% (bare integers), so the description must compensate; it does add the 0-based convention and the src->dst direction. However it leaves the critical ambiguity unresolved: whether dst is the final index after removal or the insertion point before removal, which changes results when src < dst.

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 ('Move slide') with the two indices involved, which is enough to separate it from list_slides, add_slide, remove_slide and reorder_shapes. It does not explicitly name which sibling handles the adjacent operation (e.g. copy/duplicate), but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 use this versus alternatives such as document.list_slides + document.add_slide/remove_slide, nor any prerequisite (e.g. slide must exist, index bounds). The verb 'move' only weakly implies the reordering context.

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