ppt_delete_shape

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states a deletion action but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether associated text or formatting is also removed, whether the change is automatically saved, or what happens if the shape_id does not exist). The term 'cleanly' hints at some behavior but is undefined. For a destructive tool, this is a significant transparency 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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is arguably concise in length. However, it is under-specified for a destructive operation with undocumented parameters. It does not waste words, but it also does not earn its place by providing useful information beyond the tool's name. The brevity is acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

Given a destructive tool with no annotations, an existing output schema (though not detailed in the prompt), and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain error handling, side effects, or any constraints (e.g., whether the shape must be on the slide). While the output schema may cover return values, the description should still provide operational context, which it fails to do.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It only implies that a 'slide' and 'shape' are involved, but does not explain that 'slide_number' identifies the slide, 'shape_id' identifies the shape, or that 'presentation_path' is optional. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 identifies the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a shape from a slide', which distinguishes it from sibling operations like ppt_modify_shape, ppt_copy_shape, and ppt_move_shape. The word 'cleanly' is vague but does not obscure the core purpose. It could be more specific about what 'cleanly' entails, but the 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a shape should be permanently removed rather than hidden or modified. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the shape must exist) or any conditions that would make deletion inappropriate. No exclusions or routing cues are given.

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