apply_style_to_node

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a non-destructive mutation. The description adds information about the field slot and the return value, but does not disclose whether applying a style overrides an existing one or whether the style must already exist.

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 front-load the purpose, then explain the parameter and return value. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

While the core behavior is clear, the description omits potential constraints such as required compatibility between the style type and the selected field, or whether existing bindings are replaced. For a simple mutation tool with no output schema, this leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

The schema description covers 67% of parameters, missing the `field` parameter. The description explicitly explains that `field` selects the applicable slot (fill/stroke/effect/grid/text), providing meaning beyond the enumeration. nodeId and styleId are already described in the schema, so the description adds targeted value.

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's function with a specific verb ('Bind') and resource ('shared style to a node'). It also explains the `field` parameter's role and the return value, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_fills or set_strokes.

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 description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_fills, set_strokes, or create_paint_style. There is no explicit mention of prerequisites or when this approach is preferred over direct style application.

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