Set Hyperlink

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that existing links are replaced, saves are atomic with two-slot backup, and backup=False skips rotation. These are valuable behavioral details not present in the structured data, with no contradiction.

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 but includes a cryptic phrase: 'the structure delete_slide knows how to neuter,' which requires cross-tool knowledge and is not self-contained. It could be clearer and tighter without losing information.

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 target, destination, tooltip, backup, and save semantics, but it omits the slide parameter semantics and does not explain how 'exactly one destination' is enforced or what happens on validation errors. Given the 0% schema coverage, these are notable gaps for a 7-parameter 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully explains target structure, url/to_slide destination, tooltip hover text, and backup behavior. It leaves file_path and slide implicit, but those are inferable from the tool's presentation context.

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 'Set a hyperlink on a shape or text range, replacing any link already there,' which names a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remove_hyperlink and list_hyperlinks by being the setter operation.

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?

It explains when to use the tool by describing target types (shape vs text range) and destination selection (url vs to_slide), and it pairs navigation buttons with insert_shape. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear enough.

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