ppt_resize_shape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'absolute width/height in inches' and 'scaling multipliers' but does not explain how these interact (e.g., precedence when both are provided), whether the operation is reversible, if it modifies the presentation in place, or what the tool returns. The existence of an output schema is not reflected in the description, leaving the return behavior undocumented.

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, compact sentence that conveys the core capability without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes the key options. No filler or redundant phrases are present.

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?

This tool has 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema description. The description covers only the high-level resizing concept and omits crucial operational details such as required parameters (slide_number, shape_id), how to specify values, error handling, and return values. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional knowledge about the parameter interactions and side effects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. The description references 'absolute width/height' and 'scaling multipliers' but does not map these to specific parameter names (width, height, scale_x, scale_y, scale_width, scale_height). It also mentions 'optional aspect ratio lock' but does not clarify how lock_aspect_ratio behaves relative to other parameters. Many parameters (presentation_path, slide_number, shape_id) are not addressed, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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's purpose: 'Resize a shape using absolute width/height in inches or scaling multipliers with optional aspect ratio lock.' It identifies the verb (resize), the resource (shape), and the two resizing mechanisms. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ppt_modify_shape, which might also resize, but the specificity of the description makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions that this tool is for pure resizing and that other modifications (e.g., moving, aligning) should use other tools. There is no contextual advice or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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