Move Slide

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core mutating effect — moving a slide to a new position — and states that the return value is a JSON confirmation. It does not explain side effects like reindexing of other slides, permission requirements, or error behavior, but the main behavioral contract is present.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and organized into clear Args/Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary prose. The only structural flaw is the inconsistency between the 'required' labels and the schema, which could have been resolved for precision.

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 reordering tool, the description is minimally complete: it states the operation, explains the parameters, and indicates a JSON confirmation return. Still, with no output schema and no behavioral annotations, it leaves gaps around exact JSON shape, index validation, and behavior when presentation is omitted.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: presentation as name/path with None meaning active presentation, and index/new_index as 1-based positions. The added semantics are genuinely useful. However, the description marks index and new_index as required, which directly conflicts with the input schema where no properties are required.

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 action and resource: 'Move a slide to a new position in the slide order.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from shape-oriented operations like set_shape_position. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from all sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or context for choosing move_slide over duplicate_slide, delete_slide, or set_shape_position. The only usage hint is embedded in the parameter note that presentation can be None for the active presentation.

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