edit_pptx_slide_text

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

The description only repeats the edit action without disclosing behavioral details such as whether it replaces all occurrences or only the first, whether it modifies the file in-place or requires an output path, or any error conditions. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 sentence that is efficient and to the point, but it could be slightly more structured by including a note about the output_path parameter or return value.

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?

The tool is a mutation operation with 5 parameters, but the description lacks context about return values (even though an output schema exists, it is not shown), error handling, or success feedback. For a potentially destructive action, more completeness is needed.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain when to use 'output_path' or clarify the behavior of 'old_text' (e.g., case sensitivity, regex).

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 states a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('text in a specific PPTX slide'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_pptx_slide' or 'add_shape_to_slide'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_replace_docx' or when not to use it (e.g., limitations, prerequisites). Only the basic action is stated.

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