wps_wpp_add_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must describe behavior. It does not mention that this is a mutable operation (changes are written), whether it overwrites existing notes or appends, whether undo is supported, or if there are any prerequisites (e.g., slide must exist). This is a critical gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, short sentence that is easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose.

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 it is a simple tool with two parameters, no output schema (agent cannot know return value), and no sibling differentiation, the description is insufficient. The agent lacks guidance on expected behavior (e.g., success indicator, error conditions) and how this tool fits in a workflow (e.g., add notes before presenting).

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 coverage is 100% with short descriptions for both parameters ('备注文字' and '幻灯片序号（默认当前页）'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already says. For a two-parameter tool, the agent would benefit from knowing that '备注文字' is the full text to set, and 'slide_index' starts from 0 or 1, and what '默认当前页' means in terms of index. The description fails to enrich 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 clearly states the verb ('设置', set) and resource ('指定幻灯片的演讲者备注', speaker notes of a specific slide). It distinguishes from siblings like wps_wpp_read_slide or wps_wpp_add_slide which do different things. Could be improved by explicitly mentioning it is for the 'WPS Presentation' (wpp) context.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like wps_wpp_read_slide (to read notes) or wps_wpp_add_slide. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a presentation must be open, or the slide must exist). The agent must infer usage from context.

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