ppt_align_shapes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the alignment capability and convenience, but does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, whether it modifies the presentation in place, how reference_shape_id affects behavior, or any dependencies. It also does not indicate whether shapes are repositioned relative to each other or a reference. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core action and includes relevant qualifiers (the alignment positions and the benefit). There is no wasted wording; it is as concise as possible while conveying the primary function.

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 tool with 5 parameters (3 required) and a complex domain (presentation shapes), the description lacks guidance on reference_shape_id semantics, when to use this versus distribution/spacing tools, and what side effects occur. Although an output schema exists, the behavioral and usage gaps make it incomplete.

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?

The input schema provides no descriptions (coverage 0%), and the description only implicitly covers a few parameters: 'multiple shapes' maps to shape_ids, and alignment types are listed, but slide_number is assumed and reference_shape_id is not mentioned at all. presentation_path is entirely unaddressed. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 specifies the verb 'Align' with the resource 'multiple shapes' and enumerates the alignment options (left, center, right, top, middle, bottom). It also adds a distinguishing benefit ('without manual coordinate math') that separates it from coordinate-based manual adjustment, clearly conveying purpose and differentiating from siblings like distribute or move.

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 for aligning shapes along common edges or center lines, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as ppt_distribute_shapes or ppt_move_shape. It also does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., shapes must be on the same slide), so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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