create_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the creation sources (selection item, basedOn, font size spec) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether an existing style with the same name is overwritten, whether it mutates the document model, or any side effects. The description adds some input context but not enough 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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and captures the primary variants. Zero wasted words.

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?

With 6 parameters, a nested spec object, and no output schema, the description is too brief to be complete for correct invocation. It omits crucial details like the meaning of styleKind, the behavior of name, and any prerequisites. The three modes are hinted at but not fully explained, and the required name parameter is absent from the description.

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 only 17% (only fromTarget has a description). The description mentions selection item, basedOn, and font size spec, which partially maps to fromTarget, basedOn, and spec. However, it fails to explain the required 'name' parameter, styleKind enum, or timeoutSec. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not.

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 clearly states the tool creates a paragraph, character, or object style, which is a specific verb+resource. It also mentions the three modes of creation (from selection, basedOn, or font size spec), distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply_style and update_style.

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 usage context is implied by the verb 'create' - this is for creating new styles, not applying or updating them. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this vs. update_style, or any exclusions (e.g., when the style already exists).

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