slides_insert_shape

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Insert a shape' and does not mention side effects, error behavior, constraints (e.g., valid shape types beyond examples), or whether the operation is additive. This is a significant 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 a single sentence with no waste, front-loading the core action. It is concise and easy to parse. However, it might be slightly too terse given the tool's complexity, but this is a minor deduction.

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 7 parameters, no per-parameter descriptions, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain expected inputs (like coordinate system or required IDs), the return value, or any prerequisites. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing high-level context.

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 does not compensate. It only lists a few shape types, but fails to explain the meaning or units of x_pt, y_pt, width_pt, height_pt, or the roles of presentation_id and slide_id. The defaults in the schema are not surfaced in a way that clarifies their semantics.

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 inserts a shape onto a slide, with a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('a shape'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like slides_insert_image, slides_insert_table, and slides_insert_video. The mention of example shape types further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 when to use the tool—when inserting a shape—but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how to choose between alternatives. It does differentiate from sibling insert tools but lacks direct usage context or exclusions.

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