update_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain side effects (e.g., whether updating the style cascades to all applied paragraphs), idempotency, or error conditions like missing styles.

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 very concise: a single sentence stating the purpose followed by bulleted parameter details. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy.

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 tool has an output schema and the description covers parameter semantics, it lacks context about error handling, behavioral side effects, and when to prefer this tool over style-related siblings. Adequate for a simple update but not complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by clarifying each parameter: 'name' is case-insensitive, 'based_on' replaces existing, and 'next_style' replaces existing. This adds value beyond the schema titles, though it does not specify if these must reference valid style IDs.

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 ('Update'), the resource ('an existing style'), and the specific properties that can be updated ('basedOn and/or next properties'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_style or delete_style.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_style_to_range, copy_style, or get_style. There are no prerequisites mentioned, such as the style needing to exist prior to update.

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