Delete Slide

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

The destructiveHint annotation already communicates the destructive nature, and the description aligns with it. The description adds context beyond the annotation by specifying that the slide must be in an open presentation and that the operation returns a JSON confirmation. Minor gaps like invalid-index behavior are not disclosed, but the key behavioral trait is clear and consistent.

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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple deletion tool with a destructive annotation and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the target resource, clarifies indexing, explains the presentation parameter, and states the return type. The only notable gap is the index-required vs schema-optional discrepancy, which makes the description slightly less complete than it appears.

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 has no descriptions, so the description compensates by explaining presentation as 'name or path (None = active presentation)' and index as '1-based slide index (required).' However, the description conflicts with the input schema, which lists index with default null and no required constraint, creating ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to supply the index.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a slide from an open presentation.' It clearly states the scope and distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like add_slide, duplicate_slide, move_slide, and activate_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 provides useful invocation context, such as 'None = active presentation' and that index is 1-based and required. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

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