create_grid_style

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

Annotations only indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, which is minimal. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the grid pattern structure (GRID via sectionSize, ROWS/COLUMNS via count+gutterSize+alignment) and the return shape ({ ok, styleId, name }). It does not disclose edge cases like naming conflicts, but what is provided goes beyond annotations.

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 sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, then pattern details, application hint, and return value. Every clause is informative.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description correctly includes the return shape. It explains the core patterns and application workflow. It doesn't cover every parameter (offset, visible) or error conditions, but the tool is moderately simple and the description is sufficient for a typical use case.

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 coverage is only 33% (only 'name' has a description). The description compensates by explaining the semantics of the pattern enum and how sectionSize, count, gutterSize, and alignment relate to each pattern. It does not cover offset, visible, or the top-level description param, but the main grid logic is clarified.

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 reusable local layout-grid style, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes this from siblings like set_layout_grids (which applies grids directly) and apply_style_to_node (which applies a style) by focusing on creation and reuse. The pattern details (GRID, ROWS, COLUMNS) further clarify the scope.

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 signals when to use this tool: for creating a reusable style, not for one-off grid application. It explicitly points to apply_style_to_node as the follow-up for applying the created style. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like set_layout_grids for non-reusable cases, but the 'reusable' qualifier implies the distinction.

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