Cross-Platform PowerPoint MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a write operation ('Add') and specifies the return value ('Operation status and ID of the new shape'), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent/reversible.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter documentation is well-structured but could be more concise by combining related position parameters. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 complexity of a 7-parameter write operation with no annotations, the description does well by explaining all parameters and the return value. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values further. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like error handling.

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 fully compensates by documenting all 7 parameters with clear explanations. It adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that 'slide_id' is a 'numeric string', positions are in 'points', and describing what each parameter controls (e.g., 'Left edge position of the text box').

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 clearly states the specific action ('Add a text box to a slide') and resource ('slide'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_slide' (which adds slides) and 'update_text' (which modifies existing text). The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_slide_title' or 'update_text'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open presentation) or exclusions (e.g., not for modifying existing text boxes). Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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