update_style

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the action without mentioning side effects, requirements (e.g., style existence), or what happens if the style doesn't exist. The lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. The 'Args' section is well-structured. No unnecessary sentences, though it could be slightly more concise by omitting the function signature replication.

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?

The tool is simple with 3 parameters and an output schema, but the description lacks information on error handling (e.g., what if style name is not found) and behavior when both optional parameters are null. It is adequate but not fully complete for a mutation tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter: 'name' is 'Style name or styleId (case-insensitive)', and 'based_on' and 'next_style' are described as replacing the existing value. This adds modest value beyond the schema's type and title.

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 'Update an existing style's basedOn and/or next properties,' with a specific verb ('update') and resource ('style's properties'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_style' and 'delete_style' by focusing on modifying existing properties.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'set_table_style' or 'apply_style_to_range'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., style must exist) or when not to use it.

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