wps_wpp_unify_font

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal whether the change is permanent or undoable, whether it affects only the current presentation, or what happens to text in non-textbox elements. The default font behavior is implied by the schema but not explicitly stated in the description.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the core action and scope. No superfluous words. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but omits details like scope (all slides), behavior for different text container types, and reversibility. Could be improved with a sentence about the default behavior or limitations.

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% (font_name has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the action. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 '统一整份演示文稿所有文本框字体' clearly states the action (unify fonts), resource (all text box fonts), and scope (entire presentation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which target font unification.

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 specify prerequisites or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't mention that this operation overwrites existing fonts across all text boxes, which would be important context for an agent deciding between this and individual font changes.

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