Delete Slide Row

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 disclose the key destructive side effect (removing all slides in the row), which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral context such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens if the row does not exist. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 that directly communicates the tool's purpose and scope. There is no redundant text, and it is front-loaded with the action and target.

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 destructive tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the action, the target, and the cascading effect. It might benefit from mentioning preconditions or irreversibility, but these are not essential for an agent to use the tool correctly in most contexts. The absence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter rowId, describing it as 'Row to delete'. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific details, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 action (remove) and the resource (slide row), and explicitly includes the cascading effect of deleting all slides in it. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_slide (which removes a single slide) and create_slide_row (which adds a row).

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 implied: use this tool when you need to delete a slide row and its contents. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites or conditions. It provides no comparative guidance against delete_slide or other row-related tools.

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