create_style

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

The description explains that the name is used as styleId after removing spaces, which is a useful behavioral detail. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. However, it does not cover what happens on duplicate names or other side effects.

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 concise, with a clear one-line purpose followed by a structured list of arguments. No unnecessary information.

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?

While the core creation functionality is covered, the description does not mention the return value (despite an output schema existing) or error handling. This leaves some gaps for an agent.

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 0%, but the description adds detailed meaning for each parameter: explains name-to-styleId conversion, lists valid style_type values, and clarifies based_on and next_style semantics. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 states the action ('create a new style') and resource ('in the document'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apply_style_to_range, copy_style, delete_style, and update_style by focusing solely on creation.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_style or update_style. No prerequisites or constraints (e.g., document must be open, style name uniqueness) are mentioned.

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