GenOffice pptx delete elements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well: discloses it's a delete operation (irreversible for the output), explains the byte-preserving rebuild behavior (other slides/zip parts keep original bytes), clarifies source file is never modified (via schema too), and states it writes a new file. This is rich behavioral context for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two-sentence block that is information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the parenthetical about byte-preserving is somewhat long and technical, potentially adding cognitive load that could be simplified. It's not wasteful, but the ebracing of implementation detail slightly reduces clarity of the overall action.

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 deletion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational details: what's deleted, how elements are matched, the non-destructive source behavior, and that a new file is written. Combined with 100% schema coverage of parameters, the tool is well documented. No output schema means it can't describe return values, but the description compensates for the mutation-tool gaps well.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions. The description adds the context that elements come from genoffice_pptx_slides, which reinforces the schema's parameter description of 'Element names or ids to delete'. Per baseline rules, 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting; the description's added value over schema is marginal but present.

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?

Description uses specific verb+resource+scope: 'Delete one or more text/shape elements from a slide of a .pptx using the GenOffice engine'. It explicitly names the tool family (GenOffice), what it deletes (elements), the source (slide of .pptx), and the matching mechanism (by name or id from genoffice_pptx_slides). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like genoffice_pptx_patch (which edits) and genoffice_pptx_create (which creates).

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?

The description states what it does and references genoffice_pptx_slides as the source for element names/ids, giving the agent context on prerequisites. It notes 'Writes a NEW file' clarifying it doesn't modify in place. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this vs alternatives like genoffice_pptx_patch for element modification, so it stops short of 5.

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