delete_style

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

The description adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying the return payload (`{ ok, styleId, name }`). It confirms the destructive nature and scopes to local styles, though it does not detail side effects or error conditions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by the return value. No wasted words.

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?

With only one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is largely complete for this simple tool. It covers what is deleted, by what identifier, and what is returned. Minor gaps like error handling or style-in-use behavior are not critical given the simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter `styleId` is already well-documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'by id' confirms the parameter's purpose but does not add new meaning beyond 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 deletes a local style by id and enumerates the style types (paint/text/effect/grid). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_variable and delete_page.

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 gives clear context that this deletes local styles by id, implying it is the appropriate tool for that action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently unambiguous.

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