create_paint_style

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with a mutation that is not destructive. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the 'local' scope (not in a library), the naming convention with slashes for folder grouping, and the return value shape '{ ok, styleId, name }'. This adds useful behavioral context not present in annotations or schema.

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 concise and efficiently structured. It packs essential information into two sentences: the core creation capability, the input shape hint, naming convention, related workflows, and return value. Every sentence contributes value with no superfluous content.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, input specifics, workflow, and return value. It does not discuss potential failure cases like duplicate style names or permission requirements, but these are not critical for a create-style tool with non-destructive annotations. The availability of related sibling tools (apply_style_to_node, update_paint_style) further rounds out the context.

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 has 100% description coverage, though some descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Paints'). The description adds meaning by referencing 'same shape as set_fills' for the paints parameter, which is valuable for agents familiar with that sibling tool, and by explaining the name parameter's folder grouping convention via slashes. This exceeds the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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: 'Create a reusable local paint (color) style from SOLID or gradient paints'. It identifies the specific resource (paint style), the action (create), and the input types. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_text_style and update_paint_style by naming the exact workflows for applying and editing the style.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining the lifecycle: 'Apply it to nodes with apply_style_to_node, or edit it later with update_paint_style.' It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but referring to alternative sibling tools for application and editing gives good contextual guidance. The distinction from other create_*_style tools is implied by the tool name and the paint-specific focus.

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