figure_library_resolve_style

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds real value by clarifying that the host applies/verifies and that this tool does not execute code, plus the precedence model. However, "Semantic truth always takes priority" is cryptic and no return/logging behavior is described.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core resolution behavior and precedence order. Each sentence carries load, though "Semantic truth always takes priority" is ambiguous enough to dilute the otherwise tight structure.

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 3-param, deeply nested tool with no output schema, the description covers the resolution semantics and top-level params but says nothing about the shape of resolved settings or the nested objects (colors, export, namedSizes) that carry zero field-level descriptions. Adequate but with clear 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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for all three top-level params: template (lowest precedence), overrides (highest precedence), and faithfulTemplate (bypasses saved preferences). It meaningfully disambiguates the relationship between template and overrides, which the schema alone cannot convey.

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 names the resource (effective style settings) and the action (read/resolve) and explains the resolution model (template < saved profile < overrides). It is clear enough to distinguish from provisioning siblings like save_style_profile, though it never names an alternative explicitly. A slightly more explicit verb would push it higher.

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?

"Read effective settings before adapting plotting code" gives implied usage context and the faithfulTemplate condition adds a branch, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many style/profile siblings. Usage 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.