Set Shape Position

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

Annotations provide only a title with no read-only or destructive hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the mutation behavior, the partial-update semantics, that presentation is optional but shape and slide_index are required, and that the return value is a JSON with resulting position and size. This goes well beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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-structured. The one-line purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by an Args section that maps cleanly to parameters, and a short Returns line. Every sentence adds value with no repetition of schema content or filler.

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?

Given seven parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, this description provides everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly: parameter semantics, required fields, units, optional-dependency behavior, and return value shape. No critical operational detail is missing.

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%, and the description fills the gap thoroughly. It explains each parameter's purpose, marks required fields, specifies that slide_index is 1-based, says presentation can be a name/path or None for active presentation, and clarifies that the four geometry parameters are in points and unchanged when None. This is far more informative than the bare 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 and resource: 'Move and/or resize a shape.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like format_shape (which handles styling) and set_shape_text (which handles text). It also states the important partial-update behavior ('Only provided arguments are changed'), making the tool's exact purpose 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 clearly implies usage for repositioning/resizing shapes and notes that only provided arguments are changed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the combination of behavior and required parameters gives an agent enough context to select it correctly among the listed siblings.

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