set_placeholder_text

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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and meets it. It reveals atomic two-slot backup behavior and the backup=False opt-out, explains that live='auto' edits the open PowerPoint copy of a locked file, and notes that styling inherits from the layout rather than accepting direct formatting.

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 front-loaded with purpose and each clause adds value, but the density and the cryptic 'Free text boxes: graphics pack' aside make it harder to parse than the best examples. It is information-dense rather than ambiguous, but not quite as clean.

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-param, 0%-coverage tool, this description covers nearly all non-obvious parameters and behaviors, including output-free return assumptions (output schema exists). The main gaps are the undefined 'file-mode' concept and the unspecified semantics of the 'slide' parameter (index vs ID), which an agent would need to infer.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It thoroughly documents placeholder (named strings, raw types, index int with file-mode restriction), text (newline/tab parsing), paragraphs (object shape with level 0..8), backup, and live. Only file_path and slide are left self-evident.

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 opening verb 'Fill' plus object 'layout placeholder' states exactly what the tool does, and the parenthetical about inherited styling adds precision. The closing 'Batches: apply_edits' creates a clear boundary against the sibling batch tool, so an agent can select it from the sibling list.

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 explicitly names alternatives and conditions: 'Batches: apply_edits' tells the agent when to use a different tool, and 'Free text boxes: graphics pack' indicates a separate path for a different placeholder type. It also restricts idx/paragraphs to 'file-mode only', preventing misuse in other modes, though the 'graphics pack' reference is terse and not a listed sibling.

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