wps_wpp_set_slide_layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning that this is a destructive mutation (changing layout may disrupt content), any required permissions, or side effects. The description is wholly insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks any structural front-loading or emphasis on key information. For a simple tool, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context. It does not explain what happens after applying a layout (e.g., content rearrangement, fallback), slide index default behavior, or error conditions. The description is incomplete for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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% – both parameters have descriptions and the layout enum is fully defined. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3. It does not clarify default behavior for slide_index or explain the nature of the layouts.

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 ('切换' = switch) and the resource ('幻灯片版式' = slide layout), specifying '指定幻灯片的' (specified slide) and 'PowerPoint 经典版式'. This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings, none of which deal with layout changes.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context. An agent receives no instruction on when to prefer this over other slide manipulation tools.

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