optimize_slide_text

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints beyond a title, so the description must carry this burden. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, what side effects may occur (e.g., overwriting original text formatting), whether changes are reversible, or what exactly gets modified beyond vague references to resizing, wrapping, and spacing.

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 clean parameter list. No redundant filler; every line adds value.

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?

The parameter semantics and purpose are covered, and an output schema exists, so the return format need not be explained. However, for a mutating tool with no readOnly/destructive annotations, the lack of side-effect disclosure and usage context leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, but the description compensates with an Args block explaining each of the seven parameters. Each parameter gets a concise semantic phrase (e.g., 'Minimum allowed font size') that goes beyond the bare type/default information in the schema.

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 ('Optimize') and resource ('text elements on a slide') plus a clear goal ('for better readability and fit'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling text tools like extract_slide_text or manage_text.

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 intended use case is implied by the purpose statement—optimizing readability and fit—and the parameter names make the settings obvious. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related siblings such as manage_text, manage_fonts, or apply_professional_design.

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