format_slides_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the type of formatting applied but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether formatting overwrites or merges with existing styles, behavior for invalid indices, or scope of changes). The parameter semantics in the schema are detailed, but the description could add more context on idempotency and error handling.

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 concise (two sentences plus targeted alternatives), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. No redundant or filler content.

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 description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter intent. It does not mention the return value, but an output schema exists (as per context), reducing the need. It could briefly note behavior for start/end indices (e.g., omitting indices formats all text). Overall, sufficiently complete for a straightforward formatting tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond listing the formatting attributes (bold, italic, etc.), which are already detailed in the schema. No extra semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 applies character-level formatting to text inside a slide element, with specific examples (bold, italic, font, color). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools format_slides_paragraph, style_slides_shape, and format_all_slides_text, leaving no ambiguity about its 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives ('use format_slides_paragraph for alignment/spacing/bullets, and style_slides_shape for the shape outline/fill/shadow. For bulk re-style across every text element use format_all_slides_text'). It also mentions the required OAuth scope, helping the agent assess prerequisites.

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