style_slides_shape

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the OAuth write requirement, the partial-update behavior (only passed fields changed), and implicitly that it modifies the presentation. However, it does not mention the response structure (error handling, success status) or explicitly state that the shape must exist. The parameter-level note that table cells and images will error is helpful but in param description, not main. Overall, it's transparent but could add a note on return value.

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 compact: two sentences for purpose and alternatives, plus a third for auth and update behavior. It front-loads the core action, wastes no words, and every sentence earns its place. Ideal length for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given 8 parameters (3 required), high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, differentiation from siblings, auth requirements, and update semantics. It leaves no major gaps for an AI agent to understand when and how to invoke the 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 88%, so the schema already provides detailed meaning for most parameters. The main description only summarizes the categories (fill color/opacity, outline color/thickness/dash). It does not add new semantics beyond the schema, hence baseline 3. No parameter semantics improvement from the description itself.

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 verb 'style' and the resource 'existing shape's fill and outline'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools: format_slides_paragraph for paragraph text, format_slides_text for character styling, and create_slides_shape for creation. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core purpose.

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: use for styling existing shapes, not for text formatting or creation. It lists the specific alternatives and conditions, such as requiring write OAuth scope and that only passed fields are updated. This fully informs when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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