ppt_batch_modify_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions pre-validation, single transaction atomicity, and preservation of bullets/indent structures by default, which adds value. However, it leaves undefined what 'pre-validation' entails, what happens on failure, and the scope of effects (e.g., in-memory vs saved), so it is only partially transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key feature. No redundant wording; each sentence adds information. Exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is complex with an operations array and multiple parameters, but the description omits details on the operations structure, pre-validation semantics, and how presentation_path is used. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still leaves several necessary details for correct invocation, making 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It gives no detail about the 'operations' array structure, the meaning of slide_number, or the optional presentation_path. The phrase 'modify multiple text shapes' hints operations contains modifications, but the exact fields are undocumented, making it insufficient for a 3-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool modifies multiple text shapes on a slide, with a batch transaction and pre-validation. It distinguishes from ppt_modify_text (singular) and ppt_batch_modify_shapes (general shapes) by focusing on text shapes and batch operation. The verb and resource are specific and 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 when modifying multiple text shapes, but does not explicitly contrast with single-modification tools like ppt_modify_text or state when not to use it. It lacks explicit alternative guidance or exclusions, leaving the usage context implied rather than stated.

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