Fit Text

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it rewrites run sizes, writes normAutofit fontScale, enables normAutofit, reports still_overflowing for shapes that cannot fit, and explains atomic save/backup behavior. It also honestly warns that the heuristic is an ESTIMATE without font metrics. This goes well beyond the destructiveHint flag.

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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences deliver the core action, scope, failure mode, estimation caveat, verification path, and backup behavior. Nothing is wasted, and the most important behavior appears first.

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?

For a mutating text-fitting tool with five parameters and an output schema, the description covers the algorithm, scope, minimum-size floor, failure reporting, precision caveat, verification path, and save behavior. The presence of an output schema makes the lack of a return-value explanation acceptable.

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 carries the burden, and it does compensate for several key parameters: shape=None semantics, min_size as a floor in pt, and backup=False skipping rotation. file_path and slide are not explicitly described, but their roles are inferable from context and their parameter names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Shrink overflowing text to fit,' and then details the mechanism, scope, and edge-case behavior. It is clearly differentiated from text-reading and editing siblings like get_text, find_text, and set_placeholder_text, so an agent can infer when this tool is the relevant one.

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 intended use case is implied by 'overflowing text' and the explicit shape=None behavior, but there is no direct statement of when to choose fit_text over alternatives such as set_placeholder_text or search_and_replace. It does offer a verification suggestion with export_slide_images, which is useful, but it does not explain when not to use this tool.

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