ppt_copy_shape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions preservation of formatting but does not disclose side effects, permissions, exact behavior of offsets, or any constraints like whether the clone is positioned relative to the original. The description is too thin on behavioral details.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. The key action and scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters (2 required). It fails to explain the purpose of offsets, target slide, and presentation_path, which are critical for correct invocation. The description leaves the agent guessing about how to set these fields.

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% and the description does not explain any parameters. It mentions the concept of copying but fails to describe shape_id, slide_number, offsets, target_slide_number, or presentation_path. Since the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema (which also lacks descriptions), this is a major gap.

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 verb 'Clone' with the resource 'existing shape' and specifies what is preserved (formatting, fills, lines, text styles). It also mentions the ability to copy to the same or different slide, distinguishing it from move/modify operations among siblings like ppt_move_shape and ppt_modify_shape.

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 when to use it (for duplicating shapes while preserving style) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it. It provides some context about slide targeting but lacks explicit routing to sibling tools.

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