slides_insert_shape

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'insert a shape' but does not explain how the shape is placed (e.g., default position, sizing), whether it replaces existing content, or what happens with invalid shape types. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 a single sentence and is concise, with useful examples of shape types. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification for a 7-parameter tool, so it is not impeccably structured.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and only a skeletal description, the context is incomplete. An agent would not know how to correctly set positions or sizes, or even that presentation_id and slide_id are required. The output schema exists but does not reduce the need for basic usage context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by providing example values for the shape_type parameter, but it ignores all other parameters (x_pt, y_pt, width_pt, height_pt, presentation_id, slide_id). No explanation of units, defaults, or which parameters are required beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 tool inserts a shape onto a slide, with a specific verb and resource. It lists example shape types (RECTANGLE, ELLIPSE, TRIANGLE, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling insert tools like slides_insert_image or slides_insert_table.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for geometric shapes only, nor does it point to other insert tools for images or tables. Context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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