ppt_modify_shape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that operations are deterministic and that only provided properties are modified, which is useful. However, it does not explain side effects of alignment/distribution, whether presentation_path is required, or how multi-shape operations behave.

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 main action and behavior. No wasted words, and the key constraint about only modifying provided properties is stated early.

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?

Despite an output schema, the description is vastly incomplete for a 17-parameter tool. It lacks units, coordinate system details, behavior for alignment/distribution, and explanation of required vs optional parameters. No mention of presentation_path or target_shape_ids usage. The description does not give enough context to call this tool correctly.

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 should compensate. It only lists broad categories (coordinates, dimensions, rotation) without explaining distinctions like absolute vs relative (x vs dx, width vs dwidth) or the semantics of align, distribute, and target_shape_ids. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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 updates a shape's coordinates, dimensions, rotation, z-order, and can apply alignment/distribution. It names the resource and action specifically. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ppt_move_shape or ppt_resize_shape that target the same properties individually.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many specialized sibling tools. No mention of alternatives or conditions for choosing this general modifier over a single-purpose tool, leaving the agent to guess.

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