slides_update_element_transform

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key behavior: partial updates ('Omit any arg to leave it unchanged'). However, it doesn't disclose units (points), validation behavior, error handling, or what happens if the element doesn't exist. The description adds some context but falls short of a comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies the partial-update behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers the main behavior and partial-update semantics. However, it omits details like units and validation behavior, which are relevant for a transform operation. Given the moderate complexity and no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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. It does not explain the individual parameters beyond the generic 'any arg' reference. The property names (x_pt, y_pt, width_pt, height_pt) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description doesn't clarify units or relationships. This is insufficient given the complete absence of schema-level descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Move and/or resize an existing element on a slide.' This uses specific verbs ('move', 'resize') and a specific resource ('existing element'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like slides_set_text or slides_insert_shape. It also adds the nuance that omitted args leave the element unchanged, reinforcing 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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to adjust the position or size of an existing slide element. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but since no other sibling tool handles transforms, the intent is clear. It lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance, but this is a minor gap.

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