add_builds_to_slide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: applies builds in order for sequential appearance, auto-skips bullet dots, and uses UI scripting. This covers execution order, element filtering, and implementation method, though it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds value: sequential ordering, auto-skipping, and UI scripting method, with zero redundant information.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context for a mutation tool: it explains the action, ordering, element filtering, and method. However, it lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., success status or errors) and does not cover all potential edge cases, though the schema covers parameters well.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, mentioning 'multiple elements' which relates to element_indices, but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or usage nuances. It references get_slide_content for indices, which is helpful but already in the schema.

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 specific action ('Add Build In animations'), target ('multiple elements on a slide'), and method ('in one call'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_build_in (which likely handles single elements) and other content-adding tools. It specifies sequential appearance on click, which is a key behavioral detail.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for applying animations to multiple elements sequentially on a slide. It mentions auto-skipping bullet dots, which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., add_build_in for single elements), though the 'multiple elements' focus implies differentiation.

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