Create a shape

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation is atomic, that omitted geometry defaults to 300x80 pt at (50,50), that coordinates are in points with (0,0) at top-left, and that the reply returns the shape's objectId. It also explicitly states what is not a parameter here, preventing misuse. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 yet information-dense, with no filler phrases. It front-loads the core action and then efficiently packs supported types, exclusions, geometry defaults, return value, and sibling alternatives into a few sentences.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential context: supported types, coordinate and default behavior, return value, and explicit direction to sibling tools for unsupported operations. An agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly without further inference.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning: it explains the coordinate system, default slide dimensions, default geometry, and how the text parameter is inserted in the same atomic batch. It also enumerates the allowed shape types, reinforcing the enum and clarifying scope beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a shape on a slide (batchUpdate createShape)', and clearly distinguishes this tool from batch_update by listing the supported ShapeTypes and explicitly routing the other ~130 types elsewhere. The mention of optional initial text in the same atomic batch further refines the purpose.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance: unsupported shape types go through batch_update, and fill/outline/shadow styling goes through batch_update updateShapeProperties while text styling goes through update_text_style. This tells the agent exactly which sibling to choose for related but different needs.

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