card_builder_build_styles

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

Describes the override behavior (later snippets override earlier ones at property level) and the shape of extra parameter. However, no annotations are provided, and the description doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or preconditions. The read-only nature is assumed but not stated.

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?

Description is concise with a clear example. It front-loads the purpose and structure. Slightly longer due to example, but still efficient.

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 description omits details on target and container parameters, and does not fully compensate for low schema coverage. While it has an output schema (not shown), the example output gives some context, but missing parameter information reduces completeness for a 4-param 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains snippet_names and extra, but does not mention target or container parameters (both have defaults). The description doesn't specify that snippet_names expects a list of strings or extra's full schema beyond a partial example.

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 it composes a styles object from snippets and overrides, with a specific verb ('Compose') and resource ('styles object'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like card_builder_get_style_snippet by focusing on building a combined style.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., card_builder_build_from_recipe). The description implies it's for combining snippets, but doesn't mention when not to use it or other options.

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