PowerPoint Tool Help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by stating 'Reads no deck', confirming zero side effects on presentation data, and by describing the distinct outputs of each calling mode.

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 short clauses with zero filler: mode-without-arg first, mode-with-arg second, invocation trigger third. Every sentence earns its place and the calling conditions are front-loaded.

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?

One optional parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations; the description covers both call modes, the return content of each, and when to invoke it. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the `op` schema description is already thorough, so baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by tying the optional `op` to both what it returns (full arguments, example call) and which tool owns the operation, and by explicitly pairing its absence with listing behavior.

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 states a specific resource (tool/operation help) and both concrete behaviors: with no arguments it enumerates every tool and operation; with `op` it returns that operation's arguments, example call and owning tool. It is unmistakably distinct from the action siblings (ppt_read, ppt_edit, ppt_tables, etc.) because it manipulates no artifact.

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?

Two explicit triggers are given: 'when arguments are unclear' and 'after a BAD_ARGS refusal', which tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool. It does not name an alternative or state a when-not condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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