google_slides_delete_slideDelete a specific slide from a Google Slides presentation by its object ID. Removes unwanted slides to keep presentations organized and support AI-assisted editing workflows.
Delete a slide by object ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| slideObjectId | Yes | Slide object ID to delete. | |
| presentationId | Yes | Presentation ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Delete a slide,' which implies a destructive, irreversible action, but it does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if the slide does not exist. For a mutation with zero annotation coverage, this is a minimal 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?
A single sentence with no filler or redundant words. The action is front-loaded ('Delete a slide'), and the identifier method is appended. This is exemplary conciseness for a simple operation.
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 with no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the core action. However, it does not mention that the slide belongs to a presentation (though presentationId is in the schema) or provide any context about the operation's effects. It is minimally sufficient but lacks a fuller picture that an agent might need when deciding to use it.
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 100% for all three parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as how to obtain a slideObjectId or that presentationId is required. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high 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 action (delete) and the resource (slide), with the specific identifier (object ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like google_slides_add_slide or google_slides_batch_update by naming the exact operation. A concise, unambiguous purpose.
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 tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the direct way to remove a slide, nor does it note any exclusions (e.g., cannot delete the last slide). Without this, an agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.