insert_image

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

With no annotations, the description does add useful behavior: the insert happens via setSelectedDataAsync, so placement depends on the current selection, and the view remains on the target slide so the user sees the result. It does not disclose what happens on failure (bad path, unreachable URL), whether an existing selection is replaced, permission/auth needs, or how the inserted image can be referenced afterwards.

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?

It is essentially one dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the slide-targeting caveat following. The nested parenthetical about view etiquette is slightly awkward but each clause carries information.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers source handling, slide targeting, and units, but leaves gaps an agent needs: what the call returns (e.g. an image/shape identifier for later formatting), failure modes for bad file paths or URLs, and whether position is honored when setSelectedDataAsync inserts into a current selection.

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%, so all nine parameters (including sourceType enum and the color tint for SVGs) are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the source modes and 'position/size in points' but adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules (e.g. width/height vs left/top behavior) beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inserts an image onto a slide', and names the underlying mechanism (setSelectedDataAsync with CoercionType.Image). It is unambiguously distinguishable from siblings like edit_shape_paragraphs or execute_officejs.

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?

It explains when to pass slideIndex (to target a specific slide and keep the view there) and explicitly points to show_slide first per the view etiquette, which is actionable routing guidance. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over alternatives such as execute_officejs for image insertion, or note prerequisites.

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