r7_slide_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that only named properties change and that gradients, shadows, hyperlinks and author styling are left untouched, and that it edits in place unless outputPath is given. It also discloses the silent fallback to the slide's first text object when no target is named, which is a real behavioral surprise. It does not cover permissions or what precedence applies among competing object selectors.

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?

Three sentences plus a fallback clause, front-loaded with the action and scope before the property inventory. No filler sentences, though the long property enumeration is close to restating the schema and could be trimmed.

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 47-parameter, output-less mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the non-destructive partial-update contract, in-place vs copy semantics, and target fallback. The remaining gap is precedence among the several object-selection parameters (objectId, objectName, objectIndex, placeholderType), which is left for the agent to infer.

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 94%, so the schema already documents the 47 parameters thoroughly and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the aggregate property list and the fallback rule rather than per-parameter meaning, so it does not materially exceed what the schema provides.

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 scope: 'Format or reposition one object on a PPTX slide, in place,' then enumerates the property families it touches (font, geometry, fill/border, alignment, lists, spacing, text replacement). The 'one object' scope plus the explicit fallback rule distinguish it from the broader slide/object siblings like r7_slide_edit and r7_slide_object.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: it tells the agent an objectId 'exactly as r7_slide_read reported it' is the most precise way to address an object, which routes the agent through r7_slide_read first. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-r7_slide_edit/r7_slide_object guidance and no when-not-to-use condition.

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