update_text_style

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool modifies data but is non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: 'A new font is loaded before assignment' and explains unit behavior for lineHeight and letterSpacing. No contradictions with annotations.

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 (4 sentences), front-loads the core purpose, and uses efficient phrasing. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or waste.

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 7 parameters (mostly optional), low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the update behavior, optionality, font loading, unit specifics, and return format ({ ok, styleId, name }). It is sufficiently complete for tool invocation.

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 low (14%), but the description compensates by explaining that fields can be omitted to leave unchanged, and detailing the units for lineHeight and letterSpacing. It clarifies the meaning of parameters beyond the schema's terse descriptions, adding value.

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 action ('Update an existing text style by id') and identifies the resource (text style, typography token). It distinguishes from creating a duplicate, and among siblings like create_text_style, update_effect_style, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 contextual usage guidance: 'Use this to keep a shared style in sync with code instead of creating a duplicate.' It implies when to use (updating existing) versus creating new. It does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, but the intent is clear.

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