slides_add_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the conditional creation of a text box; it does not disclose whether text is appended or replaces existing content, permission requirements, error behavior, or other side effects. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 two short sentences with the main action front-loaded. There is no redundant information, and it is easily parsed.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks critical behavioral details such as whether text is appended or overwrites existing text, how invalid IDs are handled, and other constraints. The output schema does not cover these 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?

The description adds meaning for shape_id by explaining the empty-value behavior, and it implicitly clarifies roles for presentation_id, slide_id, and text. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not fully compensate with detailed parameter explanations, though the names and sentence provide some context.

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 clearly states the action ('Add text to a slide') and the specific resource (slide), and it clarifies the conditional behavior of creating a new text box when shape_id is empty. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like slides_insert_shape or slides_format_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 description implies usage context: providing a shape_id targets an existing shape, while leaving it empty creates a new text box. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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