add_text_box

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether the presentation must first be opened, whether the change is persisted automatically or requires save_presentation, what happens on an invalid slide index, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

One sentence of summary front-loads the units and action, followed by a compact argument list where every line adds information. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the parameter documentation is solid but the surrounding context is thin. An agent still lacks knowledge of prerequisites (open presentation), persistence semantics, and error behavior, though the core invocation is fully specified.

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 must compensate, and it does well: it documents all six parameters with units ('in inches'), the zero-based indexing convention, and the newline convention for paragraphs. It lacks valid-range or default guidance, but the core meaning of every parameter is supplied.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a text box to a slide.' An agent can easily distinguish this from sibling tools like add_image or set_slide_text. It stops short of explicitly naming how it relates to those siblings, but the core action 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 implies usage context (adding a text box to a specific slide) but never states when to use this versus set_slide_text or replace_text. There are no prerequisites mentioned, such as needing an open presentation, and no exclusions or alternative routing.

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