update_style

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full weight for behavioral disclosure. It lists the types of updates but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., impact on styles based on this style), required permissions, persistence, or return values. This is a significant gap 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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and the main operations. This is an appropriate size for a tool description, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 7 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse to be complete. It does not explain key semantics (e.g., what 'copy from an item' means, how styleKind influences behavior, or what the tool returns). This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 14%, and the description only loosely maps to four of seven parameters ('spec', 'basedOn', 'rename' for newName, 'copy from an item' for fromTarget). It omits the required 'style' parameter, styleKind, and timeoutSec, and does not clarify complex nested structures. The description adds some meaning but fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Update') and resource ('existing style definition'), and lists the specific operations possible: 'spec, basedOn, rename, or copy from an item'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_style (which creates new styles) and apply_style (which applies styles to content).

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 use case is implied: it's for modifying existing styles, not creating or applying. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools is provided. The word 'existing' gives a hint, but the description does not proactively steer users away from create_style or apply_style.

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