add_slide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the return value 'Returns {index, count}' and the layout default behavior, which is helpful. It does not mention permissions, error conditions, or the fact that this mutates the presentation, limiting transparency.

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 extremely efficient: two sentences with no filler. The primary action and return value are front-loaded, followed by a relevant caveat about new presentations and a precise note about the layout parameter.

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?

The description covers the operation, return format, and a key behavioral gotcha, which is solid for a simple append tool. However, it omits any explanation of doc_id and does not describe failure behavior or prerequisites. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this is a noticeable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the layout parameter ('Impress autolayout id' and default) but does not clarify the required doc_id parameter at all. Partial coverage of two parameters yields an adequate but incomplete semantic description.

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?

The description clearly states the specific operation 'Append a slide to an Impress presentation' with a concrete verb and resource. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like add_text, add_shape, and add_image, which operate on different resource types.

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?

The first sentence implies the use case (adding a new slide), and the note about a new presentation already having one slide provides useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria, leaving the routing to inference.

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