delete_slide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the shifting behavior and the optional expected_slide_count guard, but does not detail consequences like irreversibility or index out-of-bounds handling. This is partial disclosure.

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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the primary action and adding the guard parameter note. Very efficient.

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 delete tool, the description covers the main purpose, a behavioral effect, and an optional parameter. It doesn't cover edge cases or return values, but the output schema exists. Overall, it's fairly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the 'index' parameter by reference and the 'expected_slide_count' as a stale-state guard, but does not elaborate on 'presentation_id'. This partial compensation warrants a 3.

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 'Remove a slide by index' which is a specific verb and resource, and the effect on subsequent slides distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_slide or set_slide. No ambiguity.

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 usage by describing the destructive action, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like cleanup_presentation. It provides clear context for the expected_slide_count guard, but lacks explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance.

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