powerpoint_replace_text

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that matching spans multiple runs, but omits any warning that the default behavior is an in-place overwrite that can destroy the original file with no backup.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the run-splitting caveat is the most valuable detail placed early. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the 6-parameter schema.

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 destructive 6-parameter mutation with no output schema and 33% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It should explain in-place vs outputPath behavior, the meaning of overwrite, and whether a backup/existing file is affected.

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 only 33% (just path and outputPath), leaving find, replacement, matchCase, and overwrite undocumented anywhere. The description adds nothing about case sensitivity, the default matchCase=true, or the destructive default of overwrite=false writing over the input file.

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 (literal text in PPTX slides), and adds a meaningful scope note about text split across runs. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like word_replace_text or powerpoint_native_batch, which handle overlapping editing needs.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether to prefer this over powerpoint_native_batch, word_replace_text, or the batch tools, and no preconditions (file must be open? template loaded?) are given. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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