Format Shape Text

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

Annotations contain only a title, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the partial-update behavior ('Only arguments that are explicitly set are changed') and the return format ('JSON confirmation'), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects like whether changes are persistent or any permission requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a behavioral note, then a bulleted Args list. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no redundant filler. The Args section is compact yet informative, achieving a good balance between brevity and 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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description covers all parameters and specifies the return type. It does not include error handling or usage examples, but that is not essential for a formatting tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must document every parameter. It does so thoroughly in an Args section: slide_index and shape are labeled required, font_name includes an example ('Calibri'), font_color includes format ('FF0000' with optional #), and all font attributes are enumerated. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

States clearly the tool formats shape text (font style, name, size, color), distinguishing it from siblings like format_shape (shape-level) and set_shape_text (content). The verb and resource are specific, and the scope of attributes is explicit.

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 notes that only explicitly set arguments are changed, which clarifies the partial-update behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer usage. The context is clear, with no exclusions.

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