set_dim_style

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the key behavioral trait that it affects only NEW dimensions, not existing ones, which is valuable. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as whether the settings persist, if they apply globally or per-draw, or any side effects. The disclosure is minimal and lacks depth.

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 that conveys all essential information without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place: 'Appearance of NEW dimensions' sets scope, and the parameter list is concise. No filler words or unnecessary details.

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 simplicity (4 optional parameters, no required inputs) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core function and all parameter semantics. However, it lacks usage context, such as when to invoke this in a drawing workflow or how it interacts with dimension creation tools. It is adequate but not complete, warranting a mid-range score.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does well by explicitly listing the parameter roles: 'text height, arrow size, decimal places, overall scale' map directly to text_height, arrow_size, decimals, and scale. This adds meaningful semantic context to each parameter, making the tool usable despite the empty schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: controlling the appearance of new dimensions by specifying text height, arrow size, decimal places, and scale. It distinguishes from siblings like dim_linear and dim_aligned, which create dimensions, by explicitly targeting 'NEW dimensions' (style settings) rather than dimension creation. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'sets' or 'configures', making it a noun phrase rather than a full action statement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, whether it should be called before creating dimensions, or when not to use it. No alternative tools are named, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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