add_connector

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

With only a title annotation and no readOnly or destructive hints, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It clearly signals a mutating 'add' operation and mentions a dictionary return value, but it does not disclose persistence requirements, coordinate-origin assumptions, or failure 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 one-sentence summary is front-loaded and immediately clear. The parameter list is tight, consistent, and contains no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema defaults.

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 9-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and minimal annotations, the description provides enough input semantics to invoke it correctly, and the output schema covers return values. It falls slightly short of complete because it does not mention coordinate-system origin or how the addition relates to saving/persistence in the presentation workflow.

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 fully compensate. It does: every parameter is documented with useful semantics, including 0-based slide_index, allowed connector_type values, inch units for coordinates, line width in points, RGB color format, and optional presentation_id.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Add connector lines/arrows between points on a slide.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_shape and add_chart, which target different presentation elements.

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 description implies the tool should be used when adding connector/arrow elements between slide coordinates, and it lists the required inputs. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as add_shape or manage_hyperlinks, nor does it provide exclusions or workflow context.

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