slides_insert_bullets

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action ('apply bullet or numbered list formatting') but does not disclose whether existing formatting is replaced, whether the shape must already contain text, what happens to the specified index range, or any potential side effects. This is a minimal description 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no param descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not explain how to specify the text range, available bullet presets, or any prerequisites. While an output schema exists, the operation itself remains under-described, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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%, and the description adds no information about parameters. It does not explain start_index, end_index, bullet_preset, shape_id, or presentation_id, leaving the agent to rely solely on the field names. Since all five parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: applying bullet or numbered list formatting to text within a shape on a slide. It uses a specific verb ('apply'), names the resource ('text within a shape on a slide'), and distinguishes itself from similar tools like docs_insert_bullets by scope (slide vs. docs).

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 when you need to format text with bullets or numbers in a slide shape, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like slides_format_text or docs_insert_bullets. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so the usage context is only implied.

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