Update an existing object style's fill color, stroke color, stroke width, or transparency by specifying the style name and new values.
Modify properties of an existing object style
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fillColor | No | Fill color (swatch name) | |
| styleName | Yes | Object style name to modify | |
| strokeColor | No | Stroke color (swatch name) | |
| strokeWidth | No | Stroke width in points | |
| transparency | No | Transparency percentage (0-100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states that properties are modified but does not disclose side effects, whether the style is mutated in place, whether changes propagate to objects using the style, or any prerequisites. This is thin for a mutation tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and readable, though 'properties' is generic and could have named the actual modifiable fields for extra clarity.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and several closely related sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain when to use it, what side effects occur, or how it differs from applying or creating object styles.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Modify') plus a clear resource ('existing object style'). It differentiates from siblings like create_object_style, apply_object_style, modify_paragraph_style, and modify_character_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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many related style tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions; usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.