slides_format_text

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions what formatting can be applied but does not explain that it modifies existing text within a specific range, whether changes are reversible, or what happens with invalid indices. The mutation aspect and range behavior are undisclosed.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and lists key formatting options efficiently.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations, this description is far too brief. It lacks essential details about how start/end indices work, how formatting applies to the specified range, and any interaction with existing text styles. The output schema exists, but the description still leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description only names a few optional formatting parameters (bold, italic, size, color). It does not explain the required start_index/end_index semantics, shape_id selection, or presentation_id context. The description adds partial meaning for formatting parameters but fails to cover all core parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Format') and resource ('text within a shape on a slide'), and explicitly lists formatting attributes (bold, italic, size, color). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like docs_format_text (which targets documents) and slides_add_text (which adds text rather than formatting existing 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docs_format_text or slides_add_text. The description implies it is for slide shapes but does not state exclusions or direct users to alternative tools for related tasks.

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