add_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions adding an image but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a mutation (likely yes, but not stated), what happens if the image path is invalid, if there are size/format restrictions, or what the tool returns. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's operation.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or usage context, leaving the agent with incomplete information to operate the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (slide_number, image_path, x, y) with descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain coordinate systems or image format requirements), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Add') and target ('an image to a slide'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'add_shape' or 'add_text_box' that also add content to slides, which prevents a perfect score.

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 (e.g., 'add_shape' for non-image content) or any prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open presentation). It only states what the tool does, not when or why to use it.

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