slides_add_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the creation of a text box when shape_id is empty, which is useful. But it does not specify whether text appends or replaces existing text in a shape, nor any other side effects, which is a gap for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then the key conditional behavior. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers the core operation and the shape_id variant, but leaves ambiguity about overwrite vs. append behavior for existing shapes and lacks explicit differentiation from slides_set_text. The output schema exists, so return values are not required, but the behavioral gaps reduce completeness.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains shape_id's conditional role, but presentation_id, slide_id, and text are only self-evident by name. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema metadata.

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 text to a slide') and the specific resource ('text'). It also differentiates from siblings like slides_set_text by noting it creates a new text box if shape_id is empty, which is a distinct usage scenario.

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 implies usage context: provide shape_id to add to an existing shape, leave it empty to create a new text box. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this tool over slides_set_text, so it has clear context but no exclusions.

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