Add Text Box

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

Annotations only include a title, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states it adds a new text box and returns JSON with the shape's name and index. It does not state side effects like whether the presentation is saved or if the operation is reversible, but for an add operation, this is adequate transparency without contradictions.

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 concise summary followed by a clear, bulleted list of arguments and the return value. Every word earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded. The structure is easy to parse and non-redundant.

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 simple add operation with 7 parameters, the description covers all parameters and the return value. It includes essential details like 1-based indexing and points as units. There is no output schema, so describing the return type is necessary and done. No crucial information is missing for basic usage.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It entirely does so: it explains 'presentation' as name/path with None meaning active, specifies slide_index is 1-based and required, describes text content, and notes left/top/width/height are in points. This adds significant meaning beyond the plain schema.

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 verb, resource, and target: 'Add a text box to a slide.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_slide or set_shape_text. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 clear context for when to use the tool by specifying that it adds a text box and requires a slide_index. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, but the purpose is self-evident. The description also clarifies that presentation is optional (None = active), which is useful.

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