swap_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. While it states the replacement action, it does not mention whether the change is persisted immediately, whether it can be undone, or if any permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, as the agent cannot infer the side effects or reversibility.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

This is a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks behavioral context such as scope (e.g., whether all usages across the entire document or just the current page) and potential safety implications. It is minimally sufficient but leaves room for more guidance.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the context of 'usages' (implying global scope) but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already offers. It does not compensate for any missing parameter explanation, but none is needed.

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 ('find all usages and replace') with a clear resource ('paint style'), immediately conveying the global find-and-replace capability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'apply_paint_style' (which likely applies a style to a selection) and 'get_styles' (which lists styles).

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 clearly establishes the context: use when you need to replace all occurrences of one paint style with another. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as 'apply_paint_style' for targeted changes. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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