Add or remove a shape or button

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

The description discloses several behaviors beyond annotations: it saves the workbook, leaves the macro when a shape is removed, requires the four parts of a Forms control to agree, and restricts to Excel workbook types (.xlsx, .xlsm, .xlam). Annotations already mark it as destructive and readOnly=false, but the description adds concrete side-effect details that are essential for safe use. No contradiction with 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?

The description is dense but well-organized, starting with the general action, then the typical use case, placement rules, specific kind requirements, and caveats. Every sentence adds value, though it is longer than strictly necessary. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and key constraints, making it effective despite its length.

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 tool's complexity (16 parameters, multiple kinds, interlocking rules), the description covers the essential calling context: common patterns, placement semantics, parameter dependencies, side effects (saves workbook, leaves macro), and limitations (no chart removal, Excel-only). An output schema exists, so return values are not expected here. The description is thorough enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Even though the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds crucial inter-parameter relationships: how kind='button' pairs with text and macro, how cell relates to left/top and width/height defaults, and that linked_cell/list_range apply to specific kinds. This goes well beyond the individual schema descriptions, clarifying when each parameter is relevant.

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 verb (adds/removes) with a clear resource (shapes, controls, etc.), and explicitly excludes charts ('removing a chart is not offered'), which distinguishes it from sibling xlide_add_chart. It also clarifies it saves the workbook, which is a distinct side effect. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides rich usage context: the common button+macro pattern, placement options (cell vs. left/top), and which kinds require linked_cell or list_range. It also gives an explicit exclusion ('removing a chart is not offered'). However, it doesn't directly name sibling tools like xlide_list_shapes or xlide_set_shape_macro as alternatives for related tasks, leaving some routing to inference.

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