apply_text_replacements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a mutation operation (implied by 'Apply'), has destructive effects ('All text shapes are cleared unless explicitly provided'), and requires specific input format ('JSON specification mapping slide/shape IDs'). However, it doesn't mention error handling, permission requirements, or whether original files are preserved.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose and mechanism, second clarifies critical behavioral constraint. Front-loaded with essential information, no redundant phrasing, and appropriately sized for a 3-parameter 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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers what the tool does and a key constraint (clearing behavior), but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or side effects on original files. Completeness is minimally viable but could be improved.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond schema by mentioning the JSON format purpose but doesn't provide additional syntax examples, format details, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Apply text replacements') and target resource ('PowerPoint presentation') with specific implementation details ('using a JSON specification'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'extract_text_inventory' (read-only) and 'rearrange_slides' (structural changes) by focusing on content modification with formatting preservation.

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 when text content needs updating with formatting, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'create_presentation' (new file) or 'pack_office_document' (general packaging). It mentions the JSON specification requirement but doesn't clarify prerequisites or exclusion scenarios.

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