wps_wpp_set_transition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It honestly discloses that shape animation functionality is excluded because the underlying API causes WPS crashes, which is a critical behavioral trait. It does not detail side effects like overwriting existing transitions, but the scope is clearly defined.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function and an important limitation, the second gives a key usage hint. It is front-loaded, no redundant words, and every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, its boundary (no shape animations), and a critical usage condition. It lacks details on return values or version-specific behavior for effect_code, but is adequate for a setter tool with well-documented parameters.

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 only adds context about slide_index (applies to all if omitted). For other parameters (duration, effect_code, advance_time, advance_on_click), the schema descriptions already explain their meaning, and the tool description does not add significant new semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('slide transition effect'), and explicitly distinguishes page transitions from shape animations, which prevents confusion with unrelated concepts. Among sibling tools, there is no other transition tool, so it uniquely identifies its purpose.

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 explains that shape animations are not provided due to crash risks, indirectly indicating this tool is only for page transitions. It gives a clear usage note about applying to all slides if slide_index is omitted, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (though no direct alternative exists).

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