wps_wpp_add_slide

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that it adds a slide with optional title and layout, but does not explain what happens after addition (e.g., does it return a slide ID? does it select the new slide?), error conditions, or side effects like changing the current slide index.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every word is functional, though some behavioral details could be added without bloating it.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits default layout (title_content, though in schema), behavior after insertion, and constraints. It feels incomplete for an AI agent to use confidently.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the layout enum values and notes the title is optional, but does not clarify the 'position' parameter (e.g., indexing, behavior when omitted). It adds marginal value beyond the schema definitions.

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 ('新增一页幻灯片' = add a new slide), specifies the resource (slide), and lists the available layouts. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like wps_wpp_add_textbox or wps_wpp_delete_slide, which perform different operations.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wps_wpp_set_slide_layout for modifying existing slides). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an active presentation, or exclusions.

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