Add shape

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is an additive, non-destructive write. The description adds that fill, outline, and text are optional, but says nothing about what is returned (e.g. the new element ID needed later by delete_element or update_text) or that defaults apply to position and size.

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 parenthetical shape list plus 'etc.' is mildly noisy but conveys the accepted value domain efficiently.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and optional styling dimensions, while the schema carries per-parameter details at 92% coverage. Only the return value is unstated, a minor gap given the schema's completeness.

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 92%, so nearly every parameter is already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description only enumerates a few shape types, which slightly supplements the schema's single example but adds little on sizing, colors, or text 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?

States a specific verb (Add) and resource (shape) and enumerates concrete ShapeType values, so the agent knows exactly what will be created. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like add_text_box or add_image, which also place visual elements on a 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for adding geometric shapes to a slide, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over add_text_box, add_image, or add_table, nor any stated prerequisites such as needing a valid slideId from list_slides.

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