ppt_reflow_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description is solely responsible for disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'deterministically' but does not clarify whether it overwrites existing child positions, whether it preserves styles, whether it requires the container to exist, or what the side effects are. It does not mention any permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. The mutation effect is implied but not detailed, leaving the agent blind to important consequences.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. It avoids redundant words and is appropriately rated for its brevity. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of critical details, so while the structure is clean, the content is too sparse to fully support the tool.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which we cannot see), the description should cover more operational context: what happens to the container's layout, whether it returns a success indicator, and how it interacts with the presentation lifecycle. The description only gives a high-level intent and leaves most execution details undefined. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies a slide.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only alludes to 'padding' and 'vertical gaps' which map to padding_inches and item_spacing_inches, but it does not mention the required parameters slide_number or container_id, nor presentation_path. Without any parameter documentation in the schema or description, an agent cannot confidently fill in the arguments, especially the core ones.

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 states a specific action ('stack and organize all child elements vertically inside a container') with a clear resource. It implies it handles layout, which distinguishes it from siblings like ppt_move_container (relocating container) or ppt_align_shapes (aligning shapes), but it does not explicitly name any sibling or highlight the contrast. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand the core operation, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. For instance, it does not say 'use this to reflow a container's children' or that it is unsuitable for containers with complex nested structures. An agent would have to infer usage from the vague phrase 'deterministically stack', which is insufficient.

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