Add Slide

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

With no annotations beyond the title, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation ('Add a new slide') and mentions the return value (JSON with the new slide's index). However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., reindexing of subsequent slides, effect on master layouts) or error conditions (e.g., behavior when no presentation is open). This is adequate but not exhaustive for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by a brief Args list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys all essential information without any fluff or redundancy. The layout options are enumerated compactly, and the description earns its length.

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 relatively simple tool, the description covers the purpose, parameter behavior, and return format. It does not explicitly address edge cases (e.g., invalid layout values, behavior when no presentation is open) or prerequisites beyond implying an open presentation. While these are minor gaps for a straightforward operation, a complete definition would benefit from a note on error handling or validation. Overall, it is nearly complete but misses some robustness details.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the three parameters (0% coverage), but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter, including default behaviors (None for presentation means active, append for index, and the list of valid layout values). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema and fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the specific action 'Add a new slide' to a presentation, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_slide, duplicate_slide, move_slide, and activate_slide. The resource and action are unambiguous, and the scope (open presentation) is explicit.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (adding a slide to an open presentation) and explains key parameters like insertion index and layout. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling list makes it obvious that this is the tool for slide creation, and the parameter details guide proper usage.

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