Cross-Platform PowerPoint MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates text, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return sections. It uses minimal sentences efficiently, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter details more seamlessly, but overall it's effective.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema that likely covers return values, the description is moderately complete. It explains the basic operation and parameters but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 description lists all four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'ID of the presentation'), adding basic meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide details on parameter formats (e.g., what constitutes a valid 'numeric string' for slide_id) or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update the text content of a shape.' This specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('text content of a shape'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'add_text_box' or 'set_slide_title', which might handle similar text operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open presentation), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'add_text_box' or 'set_slide_title'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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