wps_wpp_apply_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the silent failure behavior due to path authorization and states the visual unification effect. However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, what happens to existing content, or any other side effects beyond the sandbox issue.

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?

Two highly informative sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical path authorization warning is placed immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, accepted file types, and the important sandbox constraint. Minor gaps: it does not explicitly state that the presentation is modified in-place or whether the operation is reversible, but these are largely inferable.

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?

The single parameter 'path' has schema description '绝对路径'. The description adds the file extensions (.pptx/.potx) and the crucial sandbox authorization recommendation, which adds meaningful context beyond the schema alone.

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 'Apply theme/template file (.pptx/.potx absolute path)' and 'unify visual style across whole presentation', which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from siblings like wps_wpp_unify_font or wps_wpp_beautify_slide by focusing on full template application.

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 explicit context: it explains the sandbox authorization constraint and recommends placing template files in ~/Downloads to avoid silent failure. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for partial styling tasks.

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