pptx_add_text_box

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the text box is appended to the slide's shape list, returns a 0-based index, and details font property application behavior (first run, None leaves default). It also lists error conditions and validation codes. However, it doesn't clarify whether the modification is auto-saved or requires a separate save step.

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 well-structured with clear Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It front-loads the main action. While it is somewhat long, each sentence adds value; minor redundancy could be trimmed (e.g., repeating 'VAL-PPTX codes'), but overall it's efficient.

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?

Given 13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers all aspects: parameter details, return format, error types. It lacks mention of save behavior or undo capability, but otherwise it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description compensates fully. Every parameter is explained with type, default, and often examples (e.g., inches for geometry, hex for color). The description adds meaning beyond the raw schema, including validation codes and behavior when optional params are None.

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 'Add a text box with optional font properties to a slide,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pptx_add_image, pptx_add_shape, and pptx_add_table by explicitly naming the object type (text box) and its purpose.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to add a text box vs. a shape or image). It lacks explicit context about prerequisites, such as whether a slide must exist, and no exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use statements.

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