Styles: Create Text Style

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

With annotations providing only readOnlyHint=false, the description carries the behavioral load richly: it discloses headless vs. live engine differences, that a missing font is written and reported font_resolved:false headlessly but refused live, that TrueType is written by typeface while SHX by filename, and the exact pre-write refusal conditions (duplicate name, empty font, width_factor<=0, height<0, oblique outside ±85°). This is substantial context beyond the annotation.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence, which is good, but the following paragraph is a dense, em-dash-heavy block that is hard to parse ('Headlessly a font nobody can find is *written*...'). Much of it earns its place, but the structure sacrifices readability.

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 write tool with an output schema (font_resolved) and full param coverage, the description is nearly complete on behavior. It omits auth/prerequisite notes and doesn't clarify the set_current side effect, but these are minor given the schema and annotations.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the font parameter (typeface vs. file name, e.g. arial.ttf vs SHX) and ties refusal rules to width_factor, height, and oblique_deg. It enriches the parameters rather than merely restating them.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Create a text style'), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like textstyle_list and textstyle_set_current by name and verb. However, the description never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies the create use-case and enumerates valid input conditions and refusal triggers, which helps invoke it correctly, but it gives no explicit 'use this when... vs. textstyle_set_current / textstyle_list' guidance. Context is inferable rather than stated.

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