duplicate_slide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses atomic save behavior, two-slot backup rotation, shared vs. cloned resources, regeneration of creation GUIDs with a corruption warning, and the effect of backup=False. This is detailed, honest behavioral disclosure beyond anything the schema provides.

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?

The description is dense but efficient, with the core purpose front-loaded and every clause earning its place. The technical details are packed without becoming redundant or bloated, making it easy for an agent to extract the key facts quickly.

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?

Given zero annotations and a non-trivial deep-copy operation, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the copy semantics, parameter behavior, an optional tool-pack dependency, and reliability/backup details. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required from the description. No critical calling information is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It fully explains slide as a 0-based index or {'slide_id': N}, position as a 0-based final index defaulting to right after the original, and backup with the semantic consequence of backup=False. Only file_path is left to its self-explanatory name, but the rest is thoroughly covered.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Deep-copy a slide') and goes beyond a generic action by detailing what is cloned and retargeted (notes, charts with embedded workbooks, embeddings) and what remains shared (layout, media). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like insert_slide, delete_slide, and reorder_slides.

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 description gives clear context for using the tool: how to address the slide, where the copy goes, the design-pack prerequisite for move/hide functionality, and backup behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus insert_slide or copy_presentation, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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