duplicate_slide

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden to disclose behavioral traits, but it omits key details: where the duplicate is inserted (e.g., after the original), whether it copies all content, or any side effects like changing the active slide. This lack of transparency may lead to incorrect agent behavior.

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 sentence conveys the essential action, resource, and indexing. Every word is necessary; no fluff.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a simple duplication action. However, it lacks completeness regarding the insertion behavior and overall effect, which could be inferred but not from the description alone.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents slideIndex as 1-based integer. The description repeats this information without adding new semantic context like formatting constraints or valid ranges, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Duplicates') and resource ('slide'), identifies the indexing scheme ('1-based index') and context ('frontmost presentation'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_slide or move_slide.

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 usage when a copy of a slide is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., add_slide, then copy content), nor any prerequisites or limitations.

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