ppt_modify_text

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It discloses that it preserves surrounding rich-text typography while modifying text, and lists supported font-sizing modes. However, it does not mention mutation side-effects, whether changes are reversible, or behavior on locked/read-only slides. Overall it gives some transparency but leaves significant gaps.

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 two sentences and covers core functionality without verbosity. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then lists capabilities. No filler or redundant phrases. It is appropriately concise for the tool's scope, though a structured list could improve scannability.

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 has 27 parameters, a 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not clarify which parameters are mutually exclusive, which apply to runs vs paragraphs, or how they compose. The output schema exists but is not shown; the description does not reference it. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without additional context.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of any of the 27 parameters. It references a few (font_size_delta, font_size_scale, min_font_size, max_font_size) by name but does not clarify semantics, units, or relationships (e.g., the difference between font_size, font_size_pt, and font_size_delta). Agents would have no insight beyond parameter names.

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 text content and formatting in a text frame, naming specific actions (replacing text, adjusting formatting) and parameters (font_size_delta, etc.). It is distinguishable from siblings like ppt_inspect_text or ppt_modify_shape, though it does not explicitly contrast with ppt_batch_modify_text.

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. It does not state that ppt_batch_modify_text should be used for multiple shapes, or mention any prerequisites (e.g., the shape must be a text frame). The description implies a single text frame operation but does not explicitly exclude batch use.

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