add_shape

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

Annotations provide only a title, leaving the description to carry behavioral transparency. The description reveals that the tool performs a write operation to add a shape, but it does not disclose side effects, coordinate behavior, interaction with existing slide content, or what 'enhanced options' entail.

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 short and front-loaded, making it easy to parse. However, the phrase 'enhanced options' is vague filler that does not earn its place, and the sentence conveys very little actionable detail.

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?

With 13 parameters, no schema descriptions, no behavioral annotations, and no formula details, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot reliably determine coordinate conventions, color encodings, shape type syntax, or how presentation_id is resolved, so additional investigation or guessing would be required.

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 adds no meaning for any of the 13 parameters. It does not explain shape_type values, coordinate units, color array formats, or optional text/font fields, leaving the agent without semantic guidance beyond raw property names.

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 states a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('auto shape'), and target ('to a slide'), which clearly separates it from siblings like add_slide, add_image, and add_table. The phrase 'enhanced options' is vague, but the core purpose is identifiable without opening the schema.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_connector or add_image. It only implies the obvious use case of adding a shape and does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or trade-offs.

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