imgui_show_style_editor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior (toggle show/hide) and that the editor allows interactive editing of colors and sizes. However, it does not describe side effects such as whether editing affects the global style state permanently, whether it persists, or whether changes are reversible. For a UI-mutating tool, this is partial disclosure.

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 efficient sentence that conveys the purpose and the interactive editing capability in the parenthetical. There is no waste or redundancy. It earns a high score for brevity while still expressing meaning.

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 simple boolean-toggle tool with full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. The parenthetical adds useful context about what the window does (edit colors and sizes). However, given the large sibling set with related show/set-style tools, a brief note on how this differs from programmatic style tools would strengthen completeness. No output schema exists, but none is needed for this simple action.

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% for the single 'show' boolean parameter, which is well-described in the schema as 'Whether to show the style editor window.' The description's 'Show or hide' phrasing adds minimal extra meaning since the schema already fully captures the parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Show or hide the ImGui style editor window.' It distinguishes reasonably from sibling show tools like imgui_show_demo, imgui_show_metrics, and imgui_show_about by naming the specific style editor window, though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't differentiate from imgui_show_demo, imgui_show_about, or imgui_show_metrics (which show other developer windows), nor from imgui_set_style and imgui_push_style_color (which modify style programmatically rather than through the interactive editor). Usage context is entirely absent.

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