slides_insert_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and source/target, but does not disclose default positioning/sizing behavior, whether the image must be publicly accessible, error cases, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for a mutation-like 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 concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the main action and object, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, and the brevity is appropriate for a simple operation.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal for a tool with 7 parameters and zero schema descriptions. It doesn't explain optional positioning/sizing parameters or any behavioral caveats. The description alone is not enough for an agent to call the tool correctly beyond the obvious required fields.

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 must compensate for parameter semantics. It only hints at image_url ('from a URL') and slide_id ('onto a slide'), but provides no explanation of presentation_id, x_pt, y_pt, width_pt, or height_pt. The defaults visible in the schema are not mentioned, leaving the parameter meanings entirely to the agent's inference from property names.

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 ('Insert'), the target resource ('image onto a slide'), and the source ('from a URL'). This distinguishes it from similar slide tools like slides_insert_video and slides_insert_shape, and from docs_insert_image by specifying 'slide'.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as slides_insert_video or docs_insert_image. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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