Clear Slide

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('Remove all content') and the non-destructive aspect of preserving the slide ('keeping the slide itself'). It adds context beyond the schema by clarifying the slide is not deleted, but it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or effects on slide metadata.

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 a single, concise sentence of 12 words. It communicates the essential behavior with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, target, and key preservation detail. It might benefit from mentioning side effects or reversibility, but the core semantics are covered.

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?

The schema already documents slideId as 'The slide to clear' with 100% coverage. The tool's description restates 'slide' but adds no additional meaning regarding the parameter's format, constraints, or behavior. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Remove all content from a slide, keeping the slide itself.' The verb 'remove' and resource 'slide' are explicit, and the qualifier 'keeping the slide itself' distinguishes it from slide deletion tools like delete_slide.

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 description implies use when a slide's content needs to be wiped while preserving the slide, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-to-use guidance. The phrase 'keeping the slide itself' hints at a contrast with delete_slide, but no direct comparison is made.

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