delete_slide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that deletion is destructive/irreversible, whether remaining slides are re-indexed, what permissions are needed, or how failures (e.g., out-of-range index) behave.

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, which is appropriate for a simple two-parameter tool. It is perhaps too terse to earn a 5, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-required-parameter deletion tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits the irreversibility and index-shift side effects that matter most for a destructive operation with no annotations.

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 both parameters (presentationId, slideIndex) are already well documented in the schema, including the 0-indexed note. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 when structured fields do the work.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a slide from a presentation'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings such as delete_presentation or update_slide beyond the word 'slide', so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus delete_presentation, update_slide, or move_presentation, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the sibling list.

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