slides_add_slide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Add a slide' without explaining side effects, return value, or how the insertion_index affects placement. The list of layouts adds some info but omits behavior around mutation or defaults.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core action and follows with the layout values, with no redundant or extraneous content.

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 is simple but has three parameters, and the description does not clarify the behavior of insertion_index or the required presentation_id. It also omits any details about the returned object (though an output schema exists). The description is too minimal for a tool that involves mutation and has multiple parameters.

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. It partially explains the layout parameter by listing valid values, but it does not explain presentation_id or insertion_index. The agent cannot infer their semantics from the description alone.

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 action 'Add a slide' with a specific resource (slides) and lists the available layouts, making the tool's purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like slides_insert_shape or slides_add_text by focusing on adding a slide itself.

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 implies the tool is used to add a slide, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of other slide tools or provide any exclusions. No alternative tools are named, so the usage context is only inferred from the verb 'add' and resource.

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