Delete Shape

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms the deletion but adds no extra behavioral context such as permanence, permissions, or side effects. Mentioning 'Returns: JSON confirmation' is minor and does not significantly enhance transparency beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: the purpose is stated first, followed by a blank line then a clean 'Args:' block with bullet-style explanations, and finally a 'Returns:' line. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes.

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 destructive tool, the description covers the parameters and return type. But it omits error behavior (e.g., what happens if the shape or slide is not found) and does not clarify that slide_index and shape are mandatory despite the schema not marking them as required. This could lead an agent to omit them, so completeness is only partial.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so clearly: presentation is a name/path with None meaning active, slide_index is 1-based and required, shape can be a name or 1-based index and is required. This adds real semantic value. However, there is a mismatch: the schema marks all parameters with default null and no required flags, conflicting with the description's assertion that slide_index and shape are required.

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 'Delete' and resource 'a shape from a slide', which precisely identifies the operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like delete_slide (which deletes a slide) and other shape manipulation tools (set_shape_text, format_shape), so an agent can easily differentiate it.

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, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., shape must exist, slide index must be valid). It only states the action and arguments, leaving the selection context entirely to inference.

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