format_shapes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does a lot: it explains the internal mechanism (generates Office.js code), that it runs in place without reimporting the slide, and the user-visible benefit (PowerPoint view position preserved). It does not say whether supplied properties merge with or replace existing formatting, nor what happens on partial failure with an invalid shape ID — the remaining gap keeps it below a 5.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then mechanism, then use cases, then the exclusion with its alternative, then the in-place guarantee. No sentence is filler and the exclusion is placed where an agent will hit it before committing.

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?

Covers purpose, supported properties, the main capability gap with a routing alternative, and an unusual behavioral guarantee (in-place execution preserving view). Since there is no output schema, the description could say more about what comes back or how partial failures are reported, which is the only meaningful shortfall for a batch-mutation tool.

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 100%, including the shape ID provenance ('from inspect_slide or scan_slide') and hex-without-# format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's enumeration of supported properties adds scope confirmation but no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'Apply formatting to multiple shapes on a slide in one call.' It also carves out what it cannot do (corner radius, borders) and names the sibling that handles those, so an agent can distinguish it from edit_slide_xml without opening either schema.

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?

Names the concrete use case (fill color, font bold/italic/size/color/name), the exclusion (no corner radius or borders), and the exact alternative ('use edit_slide_xml code mode for those'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use and the fallback are all explicit.

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