wps_wpp_add_textbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. The description omits critical details: it does not state that this tool is non-destructive (additive), whether it modifies an existing textbox or creates a new one, what happens if the slide_index is invalid, or whether it returns a confirmation/error. For a mutation tool in a presentation context, 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 Chinese description is brief (one sentence) and front-loaded. It directly conveys the core purpose with no wasted words. However, given there are 8 parameters and no additional behavioral context, it could be considered under-specified rather than concise. Still, for a tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is appropriately terse.

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?

The tool has 8 optional parameters and no output schema. The description only covers the high-level action. With no guidance on default behaviors (e.g., what happens if no slide_index is given), error handling, or return type, an AI agent may not correctly infer how to use this tool reliably. Sibling tools like wps_wpp_add_shape are similarly terse, so this is consistent but still incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. Parameters like top, left, width, height have default values documented in schema, and slide_index defaults to 'current page' – these are already clear. The description does not clarify relationship between parameters (e.g., positioning relative to slide dimensions) or constraints (e.g., text must be a string).

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 '向某页添加文本框并写入文字' clearly states the action (add textbox and write text) and the target resource (a slide/page). It distinguishes itself from siblings like wps_wpp_add_shape (adds generic shapes) and wps_wpp_read_slide (reads content). The verb 'add' is specific, though it doesn't explicitly mention it's for a presentation slide; however, the namespace 'wps_wpp' implies WPS Presentation.

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 like wps_wpp_add_shape or wps_wpp_insert_image. No context about prerequisites (e.g., a slide must already exist) or when not to use it. Among 76 sibling tools, several deal with adding or modifying slide content (add_slide, add_shape, insert_image), yet no differentiation is provided.

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