Add a slide

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that — the new slide inherits the presentation theme, its text fields and icon slots are filled in the same call, and the default placement is at the end. It doesn't say whether the change is persisted immediately or what happens with an unknown layout id, which keeps it below a 5.

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 that front-loads the core action and packs layout source, insertion position, theme inheritance, and content filling without any filler.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers action, source of layout ids, placement, and content filling. The one gap is return behavior — nothing says whether the created slide's id or name comes back, which matters for follow-up calls like render_slide or update_elements.

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 every parameter (including the nested text/icons maps and after_step default) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates that text fields and icons get filled, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 and resource ("Adds a slide from a layout") and pins down the insertion point and styling behavior. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_presentation (new file), add_text/add_image (mutating an element), and arrange_slides (reordering).

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?

Points the agent at `catalog` to obtain the required layout id, which is the key prerequisite for calling it, and explains the default insertion position. It stops short of stating exclusions such as when to use update_elements or add_text instead, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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