delete_text_item

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 states that the tool 'removes' a text item but does not mention any side effects, irreversibility, permissions required, or the state of the slide after deletion. This lack of detail limits transparency.

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 succinct sentence with no wasted words. However, it is arguably under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no annotations. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness.

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 deletion tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description lacks important context such as whether the operation is reversible, how it interacts with other elements (e.g., animations), or the impact on the slide structure. It does not fully equip an agent to understand the tool's effects.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal new meaning beyond the parameter names and types. It reiterates 'text item' and 'slide' but does not explain concepts like how to identify valid indices or constraints on the operation, thus adding the baseline value for high coverage.

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 removes a text item from a slide, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling deletion tools like delete_shape or delete_image, which perform analogous actions on different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_text_item (which modifies rather than removes) or other deletion tools. No contextual cues are given for appropriate usage scenarios.

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