tldraw_restyle_shapes

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates mutation ('Change') but fails to discuss reversibility, required permissions, shape-type compatibility, or what happens to unmentioned style properties. There is no mention of side effects, constraints, or error conditions, which is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loading the action and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no wasteful repetition or filler. It is optimally concise for its purpose.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, all optional except shapeIds, no output schema), the description is functional but minimal. It does not explain the effect on multiple shapes, whether certain shapes ignore incompatible properties, or the result (e.g., success indicator). The sibling tool set is large, and a bit more context would help the agent understand scope and limitations.

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% with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'New dash style'). The description adds value by grouping the properties as 'visual style properties', but it does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema is rich.

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 uses a specific verb 'Change' and identifies the resource 'visual style properties of shapes', listing the exact properties (color, fill, dash, size, font). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tldraw_set_opacity or tldraw_update_shape_props, which either target a single property or are more general.

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 states what the tool does but does not provide any guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., tldraw_set_opacity for opacity-only, tldraw_update_shape_props for other properties). No 'when not to use' or explicit context is given, which limits its utility for an agent deciding between multiple shape manipulation tools.

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