pptx_import_slide

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral details: it validates layout/master chain, reuses existing layout if identical, imports only necessary layouts/masters, and copies notes optionally. This provides valuable context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, usage guideline, behavioral details, and then parameter list. It is concise at around 150 words with no fluff. The parameter list is slightly redundant given the schema, but it aids quick scanning.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and returns a status dictionary as mentioned. The description covers the core behavior, layout/master handling, and return value. It does not discuss error conditions or permissions, but for a copy operation these are secondary. Adequate for the complexity.

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?

The input schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions. The description lists the same parameters with similar context (e.g., 'Required when position=after'). It does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states 'Copy one slide from a source presentation into a target presentation.' This provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like pptx_add_slide (which creates a new slide) and pptx_duplicate_slide (which duplicates within same deck).

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?

It explicitly says 'USE THIS when you need to lift a fully-designed slide across from one deck to another...' and explains the layout/master chain handling. While it doesn't list alternative tools, it implies this is for preserving complex assets, which guides usage well.

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