update_paint_style

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses key behavioral traits: partial updates via omitted fields, and the return payload shape { ok, styleId, name }. This adds useful context about idempotency and the response format, though it does not cover error cases or permissions.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the operation, then adds the key partial-update rule and return value. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 this is a straightforward single-entity update with one required parameter, the description covers the essentials: what is updated, how partial updates behave, and what is returned. It lacks detail on error handling or auth, but those are less critical for this tool's complexity, and the annotations fill the safety profile.

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 50%, with styleId and paints described in the schema, while name and description are not. The description clarifies that any of these three may be omitted to leave unchanged, adding value for the undocumented parameters. However, it does not elaborate on value formats or constraints beyond what the schema already provides for paints.

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 opens with 'Update an existing paint style by id', providing a specific verb, resource, and the identifier used to target the style. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_paint_style or update_text_style by stating the resource and the partial-update semantics.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for updating existing paint styles and explains that omitted fields remain unchanged, which guides use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., create_paint_style for new styles) or state when not to use it, stopping just short of the best-possible guidance.

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