Set Shape Text

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

Annotations include only a title with no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states 'Set the text' implying a mutation, but does not disclose whether the text is replaced or appended, what happens if the shape doesn't exist, whether permissions are needed, or any side effects. The return 'JSON confirmation' is minimal. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 with an Args section listing each parameter on its own line, followed by a Returns line. It is concise, free of filler, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easily scannable.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical behavioral details such as whether the text replaces existing content or appends, error handling for missing shapes, and the exact format of the confirmation. While parameters are well covered, the lack of side-effect and outcome information leaves an agent unsure of the tool's full impact.

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% and the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: presentation (name/path, None=active), slide_index (1-based, required), shape (name or 1-based index, required), and text (new content). It adds requiredness info not present in the schema. However, the 'shape' parameter type is string but can be an index, which is ambiguous, and the default of 'text' (empty string) is not clarified in context. Slight improvements needed but overall strong.

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 action ('Set the text') and the target resource ('an existing shape (title, placeholder, or text box)'). It distinguishes from siblings like add_textbox (creates a shape) and get_slide_text (reads text). The mention of shape types adds specificity, making the tool's 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as format_shape_text (formatting text) or add_textbox (creating a shape). The description only gives parameter instructions, not selection criteria. The 'required' markers for slide_index and shape are imperative but not context regarding tool choice.

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