add_text_box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it modifies an existing slide permanently, what happens on failure, or typical response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 7 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation beyond basic parameter passing.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., coordinates, color format). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting but doesn't compensate with additional context.

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 resource ('text box to a slide'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other content-adding siblings like add_bullet_list or add_shape, which would require specifying what makes a text box unique (e.g., editable text container vs. other elements).

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open presentation), exclusions, or comparisons with similar tools like add_title or add_subtitle that might also involve text. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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