Format Shape

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Only arguments that are explicitly set are changed,' which prevents the agent from assuming all properties get reset. However, annotations only include a title, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention mutation side effects, saving requirements, or permission needs, leaving behavioral transparency moderate.

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 compact and well-organized. It front-loads the purpose and the crucial partial-update behavior, then uses a clear Args list with no filler. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 straightforward formatting tool, the description covers all parameters, the return type, and the core behavioral rule. Minor gaps remain, such as exact confirmation payload content and whether changes require an explicit save, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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%, but the description fully documents each parameter: presentation path semantics, 1-based slide index, shape name/index, hex color format with example, and line weight units. It also clarifies which parameters are required, compensating entirely for the empty 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 opens with a specific verb + resource: 'Format a shape's fill and outline.' This clearly scopes the tool to shape styling and differentiates it from siblings like format_shape_text, which handles text formatting. The intent is unambiguous.

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 this tool: whenever a shape's fill, outline color, or outline weight needs to be changed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the narrow 'fill and outline' scope makes the appropriate usage evident enough.

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