manage_text

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

Annotations provide only a title and no behavioral hints, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool can add, format, and validate text, but it does not explain how operations are dispatched, what side effects occur, whether validation_only changes behavior, or what happens with multiple text runs. This is insufficient transparency for a tool that can mutate presentations.

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 a single concise sentence with the main capabilities front-loaded. There is no fluff or repetition, but the brevity comes at the cost of essential operational detail. It earns its place as an overview, though it is too sparse for such a complex tool.

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 23-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions or enums, this description is severely incomplete. It does not define acceptable operation values, the structure or role of text_runs, the effect of validation_only, or the relationship between shape_index and slide_index. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided text.

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%, and the description provides no parameter semantics at all. With 23 parameters including operation, text_runs, validation_only, shape_index, and formatting options, the agent receives no guidance beyond raw schema shapes and defaults. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanatory text.

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 the resource (text) and a set of specific actions: adding, formatting, validating text, and formatting multiple text runs. It gives a reasonable idea of what the tool does and the 'unified' framing hints that it combines multiple text operations, distinguishing it from single-purpose siblings like extract_slide_text or add_bullet_points. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from those siblings by name.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools, leaving an agent to infer usage solely from the generic verb list. With many text-related siblings such as populate_placeholder, add_bullet_points, and optimize_slide_text, this is a real gap.

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