Add text box

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that coordinates are in inches, but says nothing about placement origin, overflow/auto-fit behavior, or whether the box is appended alongside existing elements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and free of padding. The unit sentence is mildly redundant with the schema's 'Top, inches' descriptions, which costs it a point.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is thin: it omits defaults behavior, coordinate origin, and what happens to overlapping/existing elements. It is adequate to call the tool but leaves real gaps for an agent reasoning about layout.

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 80% and the schema already documents units, defaults, and the bulleted flag, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'Coordinates are in inches' and 'bulleted=true' merely restate schema text rather than clarifying the 15 parameters (styling defaults, alignment semantics) further.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add a styled text box to a slide'), which is clearly separable from siblings like add_shape, add_image, and add_bullets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with add_bullets or add_shape, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 only usage cue is the conditional 'Set bulleted=true to render the lines as a bullet list,' which is really a parameter behavior note rather than tool selection guidance. It never says when to prefer add_text_box over add_bullets/add_shape, nor whether the slide must be empty or already exist.

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