apply_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'applies' indicating mutation, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., what happens to existing formatting), error conditions (e.g., nonexistent style), or return values. It does not mention any required permissions or whether changes are reversible. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and objects. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., an open document), error behavior (e.g., when style doesn't exist), or the effect on existing formatting. The schema fills parameter details, but the description lacks operational context that an agent needs to call the tool correctly, such as whether it applies to the current document or requires specific selections. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'paragraph or character' and 'selected text or a frame' which map to styleType and target, respectively. However, it does not explain the purpose of page, frameIndex, or nuance of styleName. Since the schema already describes these, the description's contribution is marginal, keeping it at baseline 3.

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 'applies' and the object: paragraph or character style to selected text or a frame. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_styles (which lists styles) and set_frame_text (which sets text content). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage for applying styles but does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for listing styles, use list_styles) or any required context (e.g., open document, existing style). The lack of any 'when' or 'when not' makes this weak.

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