copy_slide_between_presentations

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

With annotations carrying no behavioral hints, the description takes on the full burden and discloses the key effect: the slide keeps direct formatting and copied images/charts, but inherited theme styles are re-resolved against the target master, so the copy may look different. It also advises inspecting the result with visual_inspect_slides.

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 organized with the core action first, followed by use cases, behavioral caveats, and parameter detail. Each sentence adds distinct value and none merely repeats the schema or title.

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 that an output schema exists to describe return values, this description covers the prerequisites, the cross-deck operation, the theme re-resolution caveat, and the layout matching behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does give meaningful semantics for layout_index, including the name-match fallback and the layout_matched response field, but slide_index's indexing convention and insert_after's default behavior are left to inference.

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 opening sentence is a precise verb+resource statement: 'Copy one slide from one open presentation into another.' It also frames the intended job (merge decks, lift a single slide) and implicitly separates this from same-deck siblings like duplicate_slide and 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?

It gives clear usage context: 'Use this to merge decks, or to lift a single slide out of a reference deck into the one you are building,' and states the prerequisite that both presentations must be open. It does not explicitly name alternatives for same-deck copying or reordering, so it stops short of a full when-not list.

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