wps_wpp_set_slide_size

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action (set slide size) without revealing side effects, whether it applies to all slides or the current slide, whether it is destructive, or any dependencies. This lack of behavioral context makes it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the implications of invocation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short lines. The first line states the purpose and unit, the second gives examples. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. The information is front-loaded and easy to parse for an agent, making it an ideal model of conciseness.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no required fields, no output schema), the description covers the core function and provides useful value examples. However, it lacks details on whether the size applies to all slides or the current selection, what happens if parameters are omitted, and any return value or confirmation. These gaps reduce completeness, especially since annotations are absent.

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 schema already describes width and height as numbers in points (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds practical value by providing common ratio examples (16:9 → 960x540, 4:3 → 720x540), which helps an agent choose appropriate values beyond the schema's dry definitions. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 tool sets slide size, explicitly mentions the unit (points), and provides common aspect ratio examples (16:9 and 4:3), leaving no ambiguity about its function. The verb 'set' and resource 'slide size' directly match the tool name, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like wps_wpp_set_slide_title or wps_wpp_set_background.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It only lists common size values, which implies typical use cases but omits context like prerequisites, restrictions, or comparative advice. While sibling tools do not overlap in functionality, the absence of usage guidance limits its helpfulness for agent decision-making.

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