rearrange_slides

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core functionality (rearranging, duplicating, deleting) and index format (0-based), but lacks critical details like whether the operation modifies the original file (it doesn't, based on separate input/output paths), error handling for invalid indices, or performance implications for large presentations. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains capabilities, and the third clarifies technical details—all without redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates essential information in three sentences.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic operation but misses important context like whether the tool is idempotent, what happens to the original file, error conditions, or output format. Given the complexity of slide manipulation and lack of structured safety hints, more behavioral details are needed.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by clarifying that slide indices are 0-based and can repeat for duplication, which provides context beyond the schema's technical definitions. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or edge cases, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('rearrange slides'), resource ('PowerPoint presentation'), and scope ('duplicate, delete, and reorder slides based on a sequence of indices'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_presentation' or 'apply_text_replacements' by focusing on slide manipulation rather than creation or content editing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing presentation), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new slides), or comparisons to siblings like 'create_presentation' for new files or 'extract_text_inventory' for analysis. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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