Update a shape or form control

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the omit-leaves-unchanged / empty-clears contract, point-based units, the exclusion of ActiveX, embedded objects and groups, and the Forms-specific capability for linked cell and list range.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb set, then mutation semantics, then exclusions, then file-type scope. Every clause carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 13-parameter destructive update with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete: scope, units, clear semantics, and unsupported object types are all present. Only the routing relative to manage_shape/set_shape_macro and any error/name-not-found behavior are absent, which is a minor gap given the output schema exists.

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 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description supplies a cross-cutting rule that no single schema property states — omitting a field preserves it, passing empty text or link clears it — plus the point unit and the Forms-only relevance of linked_cell/list_range. It stops short of any per-field syntax or example values.

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 set of verbs (moves, resizes, renames, changes text/alt text/visibility) against a clearly identified resource (existing shape or Forms control), and the phrase 'without replacing it' implicitly distinguishes it from a re-create operation. It does not name the adjacent siblings (xlide_manage_shape, xlide_set_shape_macro, xlide_list_shapes), so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

Gives a real when-not rule ('ActiveX, embedded objects and groups cannot be updated'), states the supported file types, and explains the omit-vs-empty convention that governs every optional field. What is missing is explicit routing — it never says when to reach for xlide_manage_shape or xlide_list_shapes instead.

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