apply_paint_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing whether the existing fill is replaced or layered, any permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a mutation tool affecting a node's appearance.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the operation and target, the second provides a key usage prerequisite. There is no filler, redundancy, or unexplained jargon—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?

The tool is simple with two fully-documented parameters and no output schema, so the description's core content is adequate. However, the lack of annotations and omission of behavioral outcomes (e.g., whether the fill is overwritten, node type constraints) leaves some gaps for a mutate operation. It's functional but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, providing clear definitions for nodeId and styleId. The description adds value by telling the agent to use get_styles to obtain styleId, which enriches the semantic understanding of that parameter beyond the schema's description.

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 the verb 'Apply' and the resource 'existing color style to a node's fill', specifying the tool's scope precisely. It distinguishes itself from related tools like set_fill_color by focusing on applying a named style, and even mentions the prerequisite get_styles, which reinforces its unique role.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use get_styles to find style IDs first, providing a clear prerequisite and naming the relevant alternative tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with direct fill setters like set_fill_color, but the 'existing style' phrasing implies this tool is for named styles rather than arbitrary colors.

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