add_quote

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. 'Add a quote to a slide' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires an open presentation, what happens if the slide doesn't exist, or how the quote is formatted (e.g., as a text element). It lacks details about permissions, side effects, or error conditions.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information, making it 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'adding a quote' entails (e.g., creates a text element), what the result looks like, or any dependencies (e.g., requires an open presentation). Given the complexity of presentation editing and the lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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 schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, providing only the high-level purpose. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage.

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 resource ('a quote to a slide'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like add_text_box or add_title by specifying 'quote' as the content type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_text_box or add_title. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open presentation) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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