Add bullet list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds that the operation is a thin wrapper over add_text_box, which usefully signals identical placement behavior, but it omits practical consequences: default placement may overlap existing elements, the call returns presumably a new element ID needed for later update_text/format_text, and nothing is overwritten.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the sibling relationship. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about the returned element ID and whether sizing defaults collide with existing slide content. With annotations and 90% schema coverage doing much of the work, it is adequate but not sufficient for confident composition on a real slide.

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 90% with defaults documented for fontSize, topInches, leftInches, widthInches and heightInches, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, and fontFamily remains undocumented in both places — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (add a bullet list text box to a slide) and names the sibling generalization it wraps (add_text_box), so an agent can tell it apart from the generic text box tool. It stops short of stating the bullet-specific scope conditions (e.g., one level only, no nesting).

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 phrase 'Convenience wrapper around add_text_box' implies when to choose it — when the content is a list of items rather than free text — but the agent has to infer that selection rule. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use add_text_box for headings or multi-paragraph body text).

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