manage_hyperlinks

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the supported operations and the return type, but it does not explain that add/remove/update mutate the presentation, whether changes must be explicitly saved, or what side effects or limitations exist.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear Args list and a Returns line. The Returns line is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but overall there is no filler and the important scoping details are upfront.

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 zero schema descriptions and only a title annotation, the description covers a lot: all parameters, operation types, and index conventions. However, it does not specify which parameters each operation requires, how shape_index and run_index interact, or whether changes persist only after saving, so an agent may still construct invalid or incomplete calls.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description defines every parameter: operation values, 0-based slide/shape/run indices, the roles of text and url, and the optional presentation_id. This fully compensates for the schema gap and is essential for safe invocation.

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 opening sentence names a specific resource and scope: hyperlinks in text shapes and runs. The operation parameter enumerates add, remove, list, and update, which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling content-manipulation tools like manage_text and manage_image.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this tool is for hyperlink operations, but the description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. It also does not explain operation-specific parameter requirements, such as which parameters are needed for add versus list.

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