ppt_space_shapes

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

With no annotations, the description must convey safety and side effects. It only mentions the action and units, but does not disclose that this modifies shape positions, whether it affects other properties, if it is destructive, or what happens if shapes are not truly adjacent. Minimal behavioral context is provided.

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, succinct sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately short, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain how to identify shapes, what 'adjacent' means, how direction is used, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool without guessing.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention slide_number, shape_ids, gap_inches, direction, or presentation_path at all. An agent cannot infer how to fill these fields from the description alone.

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 precisely states the action ('set an exact fixed gap'), the resource ('shapes'), and the axis ('horizontally or vertically'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like align_shapes and distribute_shapes by focusing on fixed spacing rather than alignment or distribution.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like distribute_shapes or equalize_sizes. The description does not mention exclusions or conditions that would lead an agent to pick this over a sibling. The distinction is only implied by 'exact fixed gap', which is not elaborated.

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