slides_set_text

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

It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool replaces the shape's text. It also explains behavior when shape_id is omitted (creates a new textbox). With no annotations provided, it carries the transparency burden well, though it does not specify how style parameters interact with existing formatting or what defaults apply.

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 sentences, with the key purpose and benefit front-loaded. Every clause adds value—'RECOMMENDED way', 'no character-index math needed', and the shape_id guidance—without repetition or filler.

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?

The core usage pattern and shape_id behavior are covered, and the output schema handles return-value concerns. However, with 10 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks detail on six styling parameters and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like slides_format_text or slides_add_text. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

Only shape_id is meaningfully explained (source from slides_list_elements, omission creates a new textbox). The other parameters (bold, color, italic, alignment, font_size, bullet_preset) are left to their names, with no allowed values or format details. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is a significant 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 sets/styles text in a title, subtitle, body, or textbox, replaces existing text, and does so in one call. It distinguishes from potential siblings by noting 'no character-index math needed' and explains the shape_id workflow, separating it from tools like slides_add_text or slides_format_text.

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 gives clear context: use this to set/style text, either targeting an existing shape via shape_id or creating a new textbox by omitting it. It labels itself as the 'RECOMMENDED way', implying preference over alternatives, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one.

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