update_effect_style

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: partial updates (omitted fields leave unchanged), replacement semantics for 'effects', and requirements like 'Shadows need color + offset; blurs need radius'. It also specifies the return shape '{ ok, styleId, name }'. This goes well beyond the basic read/write flags.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: target and update behavior, effect-specific requirements, and usage guidance plus 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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested effect definitions, partial updates) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, update semantics, parameter constraints, usage context, and return value. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description adds meaning not fully present in the schema. It explains that name/effects/description can be omitted to remain unchanged, that the effects parameter replaces the whole list, and gives per-effect requirements (color+offset for shadows, radius for blurs). This compensates for the 50% schema description coverage.

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 'Update an existing effect style by id', a specific verb and resource with a clear identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_paint_style and create_effect_style by emphasizing the update semantic and the advice to 'keep a shared style in sync with code instead of creating a duplicate'.

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 guidance: 'Use this to keep a shared style in sync with code instead of creating a duplicate.' This explicitly indicates when to use the tool and contrasts with creating a new style, though it does not name the exact alternative tool or explicitly state when not to use it beyond the duplicate scenario.

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