ppt_scale_slide_typography

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions preserving typography hierarchy and paragraph/bullet formatting, which is helpful, but it does not explain the exact scaling mechanism (proportional vs delta), how min/max clamps work, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur. The parameters suggest multiple modes (scale_factor, font_size_delta, min_pt/max_pt) but the description offers no clarity on their interplay.

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 sentence, concise, and front-loads the core action: 'Proportionally scale or adjust font sizes.' No unnecessary words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting critical operational details, so the conciseness is good but not exemplary.

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 10 parameters, no annotation, and no parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how the different scaling modes interplay, what the output schema returns, or what 'strictly preserving' means in practice. An agent cannot safely use this tool correctly without additional information.

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% and the tool description mentions none of the 10 parameters. Parameter names like max_pt, scale_factor, and font_size_delta are vaguely suggestive but not explained. The agent is left to guess the meaning and usage of each parameter, especially since some are redundant (min_pt vs min_font_size). The description should at least explain the primary mode of operation.

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: proportionally scale or adjust font sizes across text-bearing shapes on a slide, while preserving typography hierarchy and formatting. This is specific enough to distinguish from generic text modification tools like ppt_modify_text, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or mention that it focuses solely on font size scaling rather than content changes.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exceptions, or sibling tools. An agent has no information about when scaling is appropriate versus using ppt_modify_text or ppt_apply_style.

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