Add image

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's marginal job is context. It adds the public-URL requirement and units, but doesn't disclose what the call returns (e.g., an element ID needed for later delete_element), layering/z-order behavior, or handling of invalid/non-image URLs.

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; the operational essentials (source type, target, units) all earn their place.

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 7-param mutation with no output schema and sub-50% schema coverage, the description covers the core operation and units but omits return value, default placement semantics, and URL validity constraints an agent would need to call it 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 only 43%, with the four geometry params (topInches, leftInches, widthInches, heightInches) undocumented in the schema. The description partly compensates by stating position/size are in inches, but doesn't explain defaults, coordinate origin, or aspect ratio behavior.

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?

Specific verb (insert) and resource (image) plus the source (publicly accessible URL) and target (a slide). It's clearly distinct from add_text_box/add_shape siblings by resource, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or boundary.

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 constraint that the URL must be publicly accessible is stated, which is the key usage prerequisite, but there is no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., vs add_shape or replacing an existing element) and no note about failure behavior for private URLs.

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