imgui_push_style_color

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 the stack-balancing requirement (which is good), but doesn't disclose that pushed styles only affect subsequent draw calls until popped, the lifetime/scope of the push, failure behavior if unbalanced, or what happens when 'target' doesn't exist. The description gives minimal behavioral context for a stateful 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?

Two sentences, each earns its place. The first states the purpose and what's being targeted; the second provides the critical stack-balancing constraint. No wasted words or fluff.

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?

The tool has 3 required parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, so the description doesn't need to cover return values. However, for a stateful mutation with significant behavioral implications (stack lifetime, pop requirements, scope of effect), the description could provide more operational detail. The sibling set includes related style setters that create ambiguity about when to use this versus alternatives.

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 coverage is 100% with each of the 3 parameters documented. The description adds context by framing the operation as a style stack push, which helps understand col_idx semantics. However, the description doesn't add much beyond the schema — it doesn't clarify valid col_idx ranges beyond the examples, nor the RGBA range constraints already implied by the schema. Given high schema coverage, baseline 3 applies, and the stack context earns a 4.

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 verb (push) and resource (style color override onto the style stack) with a specific target (window or widget). It distinguishes from the sibling imgui_pop_style_color by noting the balance requirement, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with imgui_set_style or imgui_set_theme_color which are also in the sibling set.

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 states it must be balanced with imgui_pop_style_color, which is an important usage constraint. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool vs alternatives like imgui_set_style, imgui_set_style_var, or imgui_set_theme_color, nor does it clarify the 'specific window or widget' scoping versus global style changes.

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