apply_style_to_node

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context by specifying the return format ({ok, nodeId}) and the field parameter's role. However, it does not discuss error cases, overwrite behavior, or authorization needs.

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 concise sentences. The first states the core action, the second explains the critical parameter and return value. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return value and the key parameter. However, lacking usage guidelines and error handling means an agent might need to infer when to use this vs. other fill/stroke tools. Still, it's mostly complete for basic invocation.

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 covers 2 of 3 parameters. The description adds meaning for the 'field' parameter by enumerating its valid values (fill/stroke/effect/grid/text), compensating for the missing schema description. The other parameters are sufficiently described in the schema.

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 binds a shared style to a node, with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the slot selection via the 'field' parameter, which is distinct from other style operations like creating or updating styles.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_fills or create_style. The description implies it's for applying pre-defined shared styles, but does not contrast with direct stroke/fill settings or other sibling tools.

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