Styles: Modify Dimension Style

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

With readOnlyHint=false already marking this as a mutation, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: validation before any write, what counts as a change, headless vs live-engine behavior, temporary current-style switching, and restoration/discard behavior on failure. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide and is exactly the kind of transparency agents need for a 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then organized into compact clauses about validation, output effects, and engine behavior. It is somewhat long because it also mentions return-related fields despite an output schema existing, but every sentence still carries useful 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?

For a mutation tool with nested overrides and an output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke safely. It covers pre-write validation, live-engine side effects, headless behavior, and failure restoration. Nothing critical an agent needs before calling the tool is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics: overrides cannot be empty, keys must be in a whitelist, values must fall within ranges, DIMTXSTY must exist, user arrowhead blocks must be defined, and re-setting a value to itself is not a change. This clearly exceeds the 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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Change variables on an existing dimension style.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as dimstyle_create, dimstyle_set_current, and dimstyle_list. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 establishes clear context: use this on an existing style with non-empty overrides to change DIM* variables. It also lists several refusal conditions, which implicitly define when not to use it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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