ppt_create_flow_diagram

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'without manual coordinate arithmetic', implying automatic layout, but does not state that the tool modifies the slide by adding multiple shapes, any side effects, prerequisites (like an open presentation), or limitations. This is a significant gap for a creation 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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately concise and free of redundancy, though it could have been structured to include more detail without sacrificing clarity.

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?

With 15 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain how required parameters like slide_number and steps are used, what output the tool produces (though output schema exists, so that is partially covered), or any operational context. An agent would likely struggle to know what values to supply for many parameters.

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%, meaning none of the 15 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions no parameters at all; it does not explain what 'steps' means, what 'direction' controls, or what 'style_preset' offers. It adds zero semantic value beyond the raw schema, which is inadequate given the lack of schema-level 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 clearly states the tool creates a multi-step flow or process diagram with aligned nodes, connecting arrows, and typography presets. It specifies a concrete verb ('Create') and resource, and its emphasis on automatic alignment distinguishes it from siblings like ppt_align_shapes or 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools (e.g., when to prefer this over manually placing shapes with ppt_modify_shape).

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