Activate Slide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses only the core action and a JSON confirmation, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the file, requires permissions, or fails on invalid indexes). For a mutating operation, this lack of behavioral disclosure is a notable gap.

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: one sentence for purpose, followed by a simple args/returns list. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no redundant filler. It could marginally improve by adding an example, but it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 absence of schema descriptions, annotations, and output schema, the description must cover a lot. It covers purpose, parameters, and return type, but lacks guidance on usage context, error cases, and prerequisites. For a simple tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive; an agent might need to infer specific conditions like having a presentation open or handling invalid input.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by clarifying 'presentation' as name/path (None = active) and 'index' as 1-based and required. It also notes the return type. This goes beyond the schema which only provides types and defaults. However, it does not detail valid presentation name formats or error handling for out-of-range indexes, and the 'required' claim conflicts with the schema's lack of a required list.

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 states a specific verb ('Make a slide the visible slide') and resource ('in PowerPoint's active window'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_slides (which lists but doesn't change visibility) and add_slide (which creates but doesn't activate). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 you need to change the active slide in PowerPoint, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as list_slides or get_presentation_info. There is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites like having PowerPoint open. The context is implied but not explicitly articulated.

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