add_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the ability to add from file path or URL, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, return values, or constraints like required parameters or error behavior. This is insufficient 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any filler. It is concise and directly to the point, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 7 parameters fully described in the schema and no output schema. The description is minimal but covers the core action. However, without annotations or additional behavioral context, the description is only minimally complete for an agent to invoke correctly. The schema helps but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral guidance.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in detail. The description mentions 'file path or URL,' which is already in the path parameter's schema description, adding no new semantic value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Add an image to a slide from a file path or URL.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_text and add_shape by focusing on image addition with explicit input sources.

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?

Usage is implied but not explicitly stated. The description tells you what the tool does, but does not provide when-to-use vs. alternatives or any exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer it is for images, but lacks explicit guidance.

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