style_text_range

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Apply' implies mutation, but the description never states whether existing character formatting is replaced or merged, how overlapping ranges are resolved, or what happens to style properties not listed in a range. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two sentences totaling roughly 14 words with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the clarifying range-level detail follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 2-param mutation with no output schema and nested range objects, the description plus schema is minimally viable for basic invocation. Missing context includes range merge/overlap semantics, whether the font must already be available, and return value expectations—none fatal, but an agent must infer them.

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 adds genuine meaning by clarifying that start/end in the ranges array refer to character offsets within the text node—information the terse schema description ('Array of { start, end, fontSize, fontWeight, color, textDecoration }') does not convey.

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 states a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('mixed styling within a text node'), and the second sentence adds the key capability: styling specific character ranges differently. This implicitly distinguishes it from whole-node styling siblings like set_text_content and batch_set_font, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this when different parts of one text node need different styling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., batch_set_font for whole-node changes, set_text_content for content), and no prerequisites such as font availability.

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