manage_theme

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that themes layer additional rules and lists built-in presets, but fails to describe key behaviors such as whether changes are persistent, if permissions are required, what happens when a theme is set/cleared, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with mutation actions like 'set' and 'clear'.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that efficiently cover purpose, built-in themes, and custom themes. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from feature lists.

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?

Given the tool's complexity with multiple actions (list, set, clear, info) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or the impact of actions like 'set' or 'clear', which is inadequate for a mutation tool without structured support.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing example theme IDs (e.g., 'hyva', 'luma') and mentioning custom themes as JSON files, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool manages theme-specific coding standards for Magento, explaining that themes layer additional rules on top of base standards. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'list_rules' or 'validate_code' by focusing on theme management rather than rule listing or validation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'get_magento_pattern'), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage by listing built-in presets and mentioning custom themes, suggesting it's for handling theme-related standards. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_rules_summary' or 'explain_rule', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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