Arrange all slides

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds real value: it tells the agent that slide content moves with each slide and that ordering is preserved, plus what each layout visually produces. It does not say whether the change is reversible or whether the file is modified in place, leaving a small gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the ordering/content guarantee, with the layout roster pushed to the end where it belongs. The thirteen-item layout list is long, but it substitutes for the missing enum in the schema, so it largely earns its length.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the observable effect (slides repositioned, content and order preserved) and the workflow it fits into. It omits return value, error behavior for non-existent paths, and whether the operation overwrites the `.glide.json` in place — minor but real gaps for a mutating tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more: the `layout` schema entry is just "Arrangement id from `catalog`" with zero enums, and the description supplies all thirteen valid layout names. It also clarifies `trail` for the carousel case ("the parallax backdrop") beyond the generic schema text.

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 ("Moves every slide on the path into a new layout and path") and immediately disambiguates from sibling `import_pptx` by naming it as the typical predecessor. It also enumerates the supported layouts, so an agent knows exactly what transformation space this tool covers.

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?

Gives an explicit usage context: "Great after import_pptx, which arrives as a plain grid," which tells the agent when this tool is the right follow-up step. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming alternatives (e.g. `animate` or `auto_animate` for per-slide motion).

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