google_slides_move_slideMove a Google Slides slide to a new position in the deck by providing its object ID and 0-based insertion index.
Move a slide to a new position in the deck by insertion index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| slideObjectId | Yes | Object ID of the slide to move. | |
| insertionIndex | Yes | 0-based index where the slide should be inserted. | |
| presentationId | Yes | Presentation ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.60Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It does not disclose write requirements, side effects on other slide indices, reversibility, or error behavior; it only restates the action and key parameter.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and mechanism immediately and contains no redundant text.
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 reorder mutation, the core action and required parameters are clear from the schema. However, with no annotations or output schema, the description should compensate with behavioral context such as permissions or effects on other slides, and it does not. It is minimally adequate.
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%, so all four parameters are already documented. The phrase 'by insertion index' mirrors the schema's own description of insertionIndex and adds no new syntax or constraints. The baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Move) and resource (slide) plus the mechanism (insertion index), so the agent can identify the action. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling slide operations like add, delete, or duplicate, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The description does not mention sibling tools such as google_slides_duplicate_slide or batch_update, nor any prerequisite like write access. Usage is only implied by the action itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.