set_rofi_style

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about whether the change persists in config, applies immediately, or requires a reload — the main behavioral question for a style setter.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, zero 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?

For a trivial one-param setter with full schema coverage and clear annotations, this is nearly sufficient, but it omits persistence and whether the style takes effect immediately, which matters before invoking a mutation.

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 100% and the single param is documented as 'Rofi style number (1-12)'; the description merely restates that range. No enumeration of what each style number looks like, but the enum list lives nowhere, so there is nothing more expected at this level.

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 a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('rofi launcher style') along with the accepted value domain. It is clearly distinct from the sibling get_rofi_style (read) and from set_theme/set_waybar_mode (different surface).

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 indication of when to use this rather than get_rofi_style, set_theme, or the waybar mode tools, and no prerequisites or side-effect context. The only hint is the implicit 'you must supply a number' framing.

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