add_textbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavioral detail: coordinates are percent of the slide, size is in points, color is hex, align/valign have specific allowed values, and newlines create multiple lines. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether a new text box is always added, how overlapping is handled, or any error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded. The main purpose appears first, followed by concise semicolon-separated parameter semantics. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler.

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?

Given 14 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description provides the essential geometry and formatting details but omits important contextual pieces like slide indexing convention, the meaning of doc_id, font semantics, and whether it replaces or appends. It is adequate for common calls but not fully complete for a tool with this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains x/y/w/h as percent, size in points, color as hex, align/valign values, and newline handling in text. But it does not explain doc_id, slide, bold, italic, or font, leaving several parameters underspecified.

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 a clear verb+resource: 'Place a styled text box.' It then gives concrete formatting semantics. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like add_paragraph or add_shape, but the notion of a text box is clear enough to identify its core purpose.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_shape, add_paragraph, or insert_text. No conditional context, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and general purpose.

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