slides_format_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral expectations. It does not state that formatting applies only to the specified text range, what happens if indices are invalid, or whether existing formatting is overridden. Critical side effects and preconditions (e.g., shape must contain text) are not mentioned.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key formatting options with zero redundancy. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the range of sibling tools, this description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how indices map to text ranges, what the output schema contains, or any limitations or error conditions. The sparse text leaves the agent without enough information to correctly invoke the tool in varied contexts.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for missing parameter explanations. It only lists broad formatting categories (bold, italic, size, color) and does not clarify the meaning of required parameters like start_index and end_index (e.g., whether these are character offsets) or the expected format for foreground_color. This leaves essential parameter semantics ambiguous.

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 tool's function: 'Format text within a shape on a slide (bold, italic, size, color).' It uses a specific verb (format) and resource (text within a shape on a slide), and enumerates the formatting attributes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like slides_set_text (which replaces text) and slides_insert_bullets (which adds bullets).

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 the tool is used for formatting text in a slide shape, but it does not provide explicit comparisons or exclusions relative to alternative tools. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over slides_set_text or how to handle cases like formatting only a portion of text versus all text. The context is somewhat clear from the description alone, but explicit alternative usage is absent.

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