nexterm_update_theme

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so safety is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: with all non-required fields defaulting to null, it never says whether omitted/null fields mean 'leave unchanged' or 'clear the value' — critical semantics for a partial-update tool. No mention of CSS validation, size limits, or effect on active sessions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but its brevity comes from omission rather than discipline — the one clause present is essentially a restatement of the tool name.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and ambiguous null defaults, the definition leaves the agent without the information needed to call it correctly. Annotations cover safety but not patch semantics.

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 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails: it never mentions name, css, description or theme_id, nor the minLength/maxLength bounds, nor how null interacts with existing values. An agent must read the raw schema and still guess at patch semantics.

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 ('Update a custom Nexterm CSS theme'), so the agent knows it mutates an existing theme. It gives no differentiation from siblings like nexterm_set_active_theme, nexterm_get_theme_css or nexterm_create_theme, which is a real gap in a cluster with ten theme-related tools.

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 indication of when to use this instead of nexterm_set_active_theme (which activates), nexterm_create_theme (which creates), or nexterm_update_theme vs. nexterm_get_theme. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no guidance on updating a theme that is currently active.

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