set_hyperlink

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses that the tool replaces existing links, requires exactly one destination, and saves atomically with two-slot backup rotation unless backup=False. This gives the agent a clear picture of the mutation and persistence behavior.

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 dense but organized, front-loading the main purpose before parameter details. The phrase about delete_slide knowing how to neuter the structure is awkward, but every clause otherwise earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this is nearly complete: target and destination forms are specified, backup semantics are explained, and an output schema exists. A short example or an explicit slide-parameter type would push it to fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by defining target formats, explaining the url/to_slide destination split and mutual exclusivity, and clarifying tooltip and backup behavior. It does not explicitly define the slide parameter, but the overall parameter guidance is strong.

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 action, setting a hyperlink on a shape or text range, and clearly notes that it replaces any existing link. This distinguishes it from remove_hyperlink and other sibling tools without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context: when to target shapes versus text ranges, when to use an external URL versus an internal slide destination, and how navigation buttons pair with insert_shape. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the provided context is sufficient for most decisions.

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