pptx_reorder_slides

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

The description adds context that output_path defaults to overwriting the input file, which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid slide numbers) or side effects. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are not contradicted.

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 concise: a one-sentence purpose, an illustrative example, and structured Args/Returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 reorder tool, the description covers the parameters and return value. Missing details on what the return 'Status' includes (e.g., success message or error object) and edge cases (e.g., duplicate slide numbers). Given the low complexity, the gaps are minor.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by specifying that new_order must be a complete list (1-based) and gives an example. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the additional guidance justifies a 4.

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 the tool's verb and resource: 'Change the order of slides in a presentation.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like pptx_delete_slide or pptx_duplicate_slide by focusing specifically on reordering, and provides a concrete example.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pptx_add_slide or pptx_delete_slide. It implies usage through the example but lacks 'when not to use' or alternative tool references.

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