add_shape

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does cover the rendering semantics of fill, gradient, border, text, and corner rounding, but it does not disclose side effects, return value, coordinate anchor behavior, or whether the shapes are appended or replace existing content.

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 a dense but efficient paragraph with no filler. Every clause adds a distinct piece of parameter semantics, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first two words.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is strong on units and formatting but incomplete on important context: whether x/y is a top-left anchor or center, what the 'round' shape means relative to 'ellipse', and what happens after insertion. These are meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description compensates with unit and format details for most parameters: x/y/w/h percentages, hex fill/null handling, fill2+angle gradients, border units, text color/size/bold, and corner units. Only the self-explanatory doc_id and slide parameters are not explicitly revisited.

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 opens with 'Draw a shape' and lists the shape enum (rect|round|ellipse|line), making the tool's purpose concrete and distinct from text/image tools. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly say which adjacent tool it is not, so it stops short of 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 intended use is implied: use this when a shape with coordinates, fill, border, or text needs to be added to a slide. There is no explicit when-to-use versus add_textbox or add_image guidance, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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