Set Placeholder Text

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the description adds substantial beyond-annotation behavior: atomic saves, two-slot backup rotation with a backup=False escape hatch, and live='auto' editing of the open PowerPoint copy of a locked file. These are exactly the kind of side effects (file mutation, backup behavior) an agent needs to anticipate, and nothing in the text contradicts the annotations.

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?

Efficiently front-loads the core purpose and packs every sentence with new information — parameter semantics, routing, save behavior, live mode — with no filler. Some phrasing is cryptically compressed ('raw ph type', 'idx/paragraphs= file-mode only'), which slightly hurts readability despite the economical structure.

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?

Given the high complexity (7 params, 3 required) and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essential semantics, save/backup behavior, and alternative-tool routing, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The remaining gaps are the undocumented required slide parameter and no guidance on invalid placeholder/error behavior, which prevent a top score.

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 full parameter burden, and it does so extensively: placeholder matching semantics ('exact type wins', body/content synonyms, raw ph type, idx int), text encoding (newlines = paragraphs, tabs = levels), paragraphs format with level range 0..8, backup=False semantics, and live='auto' semantics. However, the required slide parameter (schema type {}) and file_path receive no clarification, leaving ambiguity on how to specify a slide.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource statement, 'Fill a layout placeholder,' and immediately adds a distinguishing trait ('styling inherits from the layout'). It also separates itself from adjacent operations by naming free text boxes (graphics pack) and batches (apply_edits), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening their schemas.

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?

Provides explicit routing for the main alternatives: free text boxes go to the graphics pack, and batched operations go to apply_edits. It also constrains when idx/paragraphs input is valid ('file-mode only'). It stops short of a full when-to-use versus the broader sibling set (e.g., fit_text, get_text), but the key adjacent cases are covered.

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