reorder_slides

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so exceptionally. It discloses atomic saves, two-slot backup rotation, backup=False skipping rotation, and that durable slide_ids/view anchors survive while plain indices do not. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs beyond the schema.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: scope, permutation constraint, ID behavior, alternative tool, and backup semantics. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema details.

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 reordering mutation with no annotations, the description covers the critical edge cases: partial lists, index semantics, persistence of durable identifiers, atomic save, and backup behavior. Combined with the output schema, this gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and understand consequences.

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 explain the parameters, and it does. It clarifies that 'order' must contain every current 0-based slide index exactly once as a permutation, and it explains the semantics of 'backup' including the effect of backup=False. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rearrange the whole deck in one call.' It precisely defines the operation as a permutation of all 0-based slide indices, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_slide by noting it is for whole-deck rearrangement, not single-slide moves.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'For moving ONE slide, move_slide in the design pack is simpler' and even provides the enable_tools call to access it. It also states a hard constraint (partial lists refuse), so the agent knows not to pass incomplete sequences.

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