Resolve generic, user, project, reference, and explicit authoring defaults for one visual family, enabling consistent dashboard styling without manual lookups.
Resolve compact generic, user, project, reference and explicit authoring defaults for one visual family.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| family | No | ||
| explicit | No | ||
| reference | No | ||
| project_root | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it resolves defaults across five layers (generic, user, project, reference, explicit), which is useful behavioral context, but it does not describe precedence, output, or side effects.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is dense but every word contributes to the scope, making it appropriately sized for a one-line summary.
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?
With four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It names the operation but omits prerequisites, parameter formats, and return behavior.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions 'explicit' and 'reference' and hints at 'project' via 'project_root', but gives no meaning for the 'family' parameter or the format of the object parameters, leaving most parameters unexplained.
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 the verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'authoring defaults', scoped to 'one visual family'. It lists the default categories (generic, user, project, reference, explicit), giving a clear sense of the operation, though it doesn't differentiate from any sibling because none is directly comparable.
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 sentence explains when to call this tool, what prerequisites exist, or what alternatives exist. The description only describes what it does, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.