PowerPoint MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a slide with a title and chart, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., modifies an existing presentation), error handling, or response format. The automatic chart selection is noted, but no further behavioral traits like rate limits or idempotency are described.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key features. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from behavioral notes for clarity.

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 the complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or the implications of automatic chart selection. For a tool that modifies presentations and involves data processing, more context on behavior and outcomes is needed to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'data structure' for chart selection but not elaborating on how data influences chart type or providing examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Add a new slide') and the key components ('with a title and chart'), specifying the chart type is automatically selected. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add-slide-title-only' or 'add-slide-title-with-table' by focusing on charts, but could be more explicit about differentiation from 'add-slide-comparison' or others that might also involve data visualization.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add-slide-title-with-table' or 'add-slide-comparison'. It mentions automatic chart selection based on data structure, but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling tool names alone.

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