slides_set_alignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action and allowed values but omits behavioral details such as index semantics, error conditions, side effects on existing formatting, or whether the operation is reversible. This is minimal disclosure 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and the alignment values.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description and input schema together leave important contextual gaps, especially around index boundaries and behavioral expectations. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only adds meaning for the 'alignment' parameter by listing allowed values. It does not explain the semantics of 'start_index' and 'end_index' (e.g., inclusive/exclusive, character offsets) or any constraints on 'shape_id' and 'presentation_id'.

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: 'Set paragraph alignment for a text range within a shape' and lists the allowed alignment values. It is specific about the resource and scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like slides_format_text or docs_set_alignment.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage context.

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