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 actions (list, set, clear, info) but doesn't explain what 'set' or 'clear' do operationally (e.g., whether they modify configuration files, require permissions, or have side effects). For a tool with mutation capabilities, this is a significant gap in transparency about its behavior and potential impacts.

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: it states the purpose, lists built-in presets, and notes custom themes. Each sentence adds useful information without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core function. A minor improvement could be structuring the preset list more clearly, but overall it's 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter context well but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or return values. Without annotations or output schema, more guidance on what happens after actions like 'set' or 'clear' would enhance completeness for safe agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (action with enum values and themeId). The description adds value by providing examples of theme IDs (hyva, luma, breeze, porto) and mentioning custom themes as JSON files, which helps contextualize the themeId parameter beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or constraints, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool manages theme-specific coding standards for Magento, explaining that themes layer additional rules on top of base standards. It provides specific examples of built-in presets (hyva, luma, breeze, porto) and mentions custom themes, distinguishing it from siblings like list_rules or validate_code which focus on rules rather than theme management. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like check_security or explain_rule.

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 custom theme options, suggesting when to use this tool for theme-related tasks. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_magento_pattern or list_rules, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions for actions like 'set' or 'clear'.

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