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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the important behavioral trait that this tool does not edit anything itself but yields a prompt to be executed by editor tools after confirmation. It also adds cost context ("Free"). Return shape of the card is not described, keeping it at 4.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but that sentence is long and packs parentheticals and examples, and the trailing "Free, read-only" repeats what annotations already declare. Functionally efficient but not tight.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool with full parameter descriptions, the description covers both input modes and the downstream workflow (show card, confirm, then edit). It stops short of describing what the card or prompt contains, which an agent might want with no output schema present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does clarify the mode switch (codes versus feeling) and quantifies the suggestion as "4 to 6 codes", which is meaningful beyond the schema, but `why` and the interaction between codes and feeling are left to the 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?

States specific verbs and resources: it returns a short style card plus a full edit prompt for chosen Switch Style codes, or suggests 4-6 codes for a described feeling. The dual-mode nature is conveyed with concrete examples ("O10 W1 F4 B6 A2 G4", "Y1") so an agent can tell it is not a generator itself. It does not name the sibling it differs from (e.g., list_styles for browsing codes), so it stops short of 5.

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?

Gives clear operating context: pick codes or describe a feeling, show the card, wait for a yes before editing, then follow the prompt with the editor tools. That is a usable when-and-how sequence. It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (list_styles, the apply_* style siblings), so it is not a 5.

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