create_grid_style

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. Description adds useful context about return format and grid structure, clarifying what the tool does beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, structural details, and return info. No superfluous text; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description provides return fields. It explains what the tool does and its main parameters. Minor ambiguity about the scope of 'local' (e.g., current page vs. document), but overall sufficient for a low-complexity tool.

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 low (33%), but description compensates partially by explaining the meaning of grid types and their associated fields. However, it does not describe the 'visible' or 'description' parameters, leaving some gaps.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a local layout-grid style, explains the difference between GRID (uniform sectionSize) and ROWS/COLUMNS (count, gutterSize, alignment), and returns a specific object. It effectively distinguishes from sibling style-creation tools.

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 implies when to use it (for layout-grid styles) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like create_paint_style or create_text_style. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions provided.

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