ppt_move_shape

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that coordinates are in inches and distinguishes absolute vs relative movement, but it does not explain what happens if both x/y and dx/dy are supplied, the reference point for absolute coordinates (e.g., top-left), or whether the shape is repositioned in-place. These are critical behavioral aspects for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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, tightly written sentence. It front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies the two modes and units without any redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to specify whether at least one of x/y or dx/dy must be provided (the schema allows none), what happens when both are provided, the coordinate reference point, and the optionality of presentation_path. While an output schema exists, it does not address these call-time ambiguities.

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 clarifies that x/y are absolute coordinates and dx/dy are relative deltas, which is essential because the schema itself has 0% description coverage and only provides parameter names. However, it does not explain the meaning of slide_number or presentation_path, nor the interaction between the two coordinate sets. The core movement parameters are given meaning, but the rest remain ambiguous.

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 action (move), the target resource (a shape), and the two distinct mechanisms (absolute x/y or relative dx/dy in inches). This immediately distinguishes it from related tools like ppt_move_container or ppt_align_shapes, which target different resources or operations.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as ppt_align_shapes, ppt_resize_shape, or ppt_move_container. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or which sibling to prefer for a given scenario. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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