Add a text box

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a local mutation. The description adds 'themed' and the coordinate system, but it does not say what happens to existing elements, whether the slide must already exist, or how the new text box interacts with theme roles.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the coordinate convention. It is efficient and easy to scan.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 45% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It explains the coordinate system but omits enough parameter and behavioral detail that an agent would need to infer or inspect the schema carefully.

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 only 45%, and the description compensates only for x/y by explaining the 1600 × 900 unit system and center origin. It leaves role, align, bullets, text, and several other parameters without added meaning beyond sparse schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Adds a themed text box to a slide.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_image or update_elements, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It gives no guidance on when to use add_text versus update_elements, add_slide, or other sibling tools. The coordinate-system note is useful context but not usage guidance; there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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