Remove animations

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description must reveal what mutation occurs; 'Removes the in-slide animations' does indicate that animation data is destroyed. It does not say whether the removal is reversible, whether the project file is written back to disk, or whether it requires the project to be open, which are meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 is appropriately sized, though extremely terse given the mutation's implications.

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 and only two parameters, the core operation is conveyed, but a mutation tool should state persistence behavior and what 'all' means in context (all slides of the deck). Those details are absent, leaving the definition 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 50%: path is well documented, but steps (array of integers) has no description. The phrase 'given slides (default: all)' hints that steps selects slides, but it never confirms that the integers are slide indices or how they are interpreted, leaving the least-documented parameter partially inferred.

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 (removes) and resource (in-slide animations of given slides), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools animate and auto_animate. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 scope qualifier '(default: all)' implies the tool acts globally unless slides are specified, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the project must be open or the file must exist), and no named alternative such as animate for replacing animations.

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