wps_wpp_add_shape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only mentions the action and optional parameters (text, fill color) but does not explain side effects, permissions, or what happens to existing shapes. It does not address the default slide behavior or coordinate system. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and key information. It contains no superfluous words or redundant explanations. Every part serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 8 parameters (all optional) and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the coordinate system, default values, or how the shape is inserted (e.g., to the current slide versus a specified slide). It also does not mention what happens if parameters are omitted. The schema descriptions help, but the high parameter count and lack of behavioral context leave the agent with an incomplete understanding.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by repeating the shape types and mentioning optional text and fill color, which aligns with the parameters. However, it does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., default values, coordinate system, or behavior of slide_index). It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 action ('insert basic shapes'), lists the specific shape types (rectangle, rounded rectangle, oval, diamond, arrow), and indicates the use case (flowcharts/diagrams). It is specific and uses a verb+resource structure. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings like wps_wpp_add_textbox or wps_wpp_insert_image, which would earn a top score of 5.

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 implies usage for drawing flowcharts or diagrams, providing some context. However, it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. The context is implied but not structured as actionable guidelines.

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