ppt_equalize_sizes

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'deterministically', which is a useful trait, but it does not explicitly state that it modifies shapes in place, whether it preserves aspect ratios, or what happens if shapes are locked or have conflicting constraints. The mutating nature is implied but not explicitly flagged as destructive.

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 well-structured sentence that packs the core function, scope, and methods without fluff. It front-loads the primary action and avoids redundant details, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the interaction between mode and target dimensions, the default behavior when both equalize flags are true, or the output structure (though an output schema exists). Important edge cases and prerequisites are unaddressed.

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 description hints at parameter meanings: 'width, height, or both' maps to equalize_width and equalize_height, and 'first, max, min, avg, or target dimensions' maps to mode and target_width/target_height. However, it does not explicitly name parameters or explain the interplay, and with 0% schema coverage, it leaves ambiguity around mode values and the exact role of target dimensions.

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 ('Equalize'), the resource ('shapes'), the scope ('width, height, or both'), and the methods ('first, max, min, avg, or target dimensions'). It distinguishes from sibling alignment/distribution tools by focusing on size equalization rather than positioning. The mention of 'deterministically' adds specificity about behavior.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ppt_resize_shape or ppt_align_shapes. The description implies it is for multiple shapes, but it does not explicitly exclude single-shape use or mention scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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