add_shape_to_slide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the shape is added to the existing slide, whether it might overwrite content, or what happens with the output path. No information on permissions, side effects, or defaults beyond what the schema shows.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it omits important details that would need further sentences. It is front-loaded but could be more structured.

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?

With 10 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the tool's effect on the slide, ordering, or how shapes interact. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description itself is incomplete for a complex 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing shape types, but the schema already lists them. No additional context on parameter usage or relationships.

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 clearly states that the tool adds a shape to a PPTX slide and lists three shape types (rectangle, oval, triangle), which matches the core functionality. However, the input schema also allows 'rounded_rectangle', so the description is slightly incomplete, but still sufficiently clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_image_to_docx or other PPTX manipulation tools. The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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