add_rectangle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default dimensions (20% of slide dimensions) and implies a creation action ('Add'), but doesn't describe what happens upon invocation (e.g., whether it returns the rectangle ID, if it modifies the slide in place, error conditions, or permission requirements). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Add a rectangle to a slide') and includes key default behavior ('with 20% of slide dimensions'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, dependencies (e.g., slide existence), and how it fits with sibling tools. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe and effective use is incomplete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., defaults for height, width, x, y). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the 20% default for dimensions, but doesn't provide additional context like unit explanations, coordinate systems, or interaction effects between parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Add a rectangle') and the target resource ('to a slide'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also specifies the default dimensions ('with 20% of slide dimensions'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'create_slide', though the specificity of adding a rectangle to an existing slide is inherently distinct.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing slide or presentation), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_slide' or 'list_slides'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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