fgui_set_text_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: external_reload closes and reopens the document after saving, and the response strength field reports verification level (reload/disk/none). It still omits whether the mutation persists without save, permission needs, and reversibility.

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?

Two short paragraphs, purpose front-loaded, followed by the verification semantics. Little waste, though the verification detail could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully adds the strength field meaning. However, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with a nested style object and no annotations, it fails to cover object targeting and the style payload, leaving real gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains external_reload and its dependency on save, leaving style, verify, object_id, object_name, and object_path entirely undocumented, so most parameters remain opaque.

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 states a specific verb and resource: setting a unified text style for TextField/RichText objects. It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from siblings such as fgui_get_text_style or the generic fgui_set_property, so an agent must infer which one to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives. The only usage direction is conditional: external_reload=True requires save=True and is the only way to prove values survive a reload. That is useful parameter guidance but not tool-selection guidance.

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