apply_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool is non-mutating ('그래프는 안 바꾼다') and that the effect is temporary ('임시로'), which covers the main safety-relevant behaviors. It does not mention TTL expiration or clearing behavior, but the schema's ttl parameter partially covers that, and the core behavioral profile is transparent.

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 sentence with the key safety message positioned after an em dash, making it efficient and front-loaded. The cryptic reference '[5-D]' and the vague '등' (etc.) slightly reduce self-containedness, but the overall structure is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has a selector DSL, nested style object, TTL semantics, and an output schema, but the description only mentions 'just pushed' targets and graph non-mutation. It does not explain that the selector parameter can target arbitrary nodes, nor does it mention the clear_style relationship outside of the schema. The schema compensates substantially, so the description is adequate but not complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides rich explanations for selector (DSL filter), style (limited to color/size/border), and ttl (seconds, 0 means until clear_style). The description does not need to compensate here.

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 uses a specific verb ('임시로 강조한다' = temporarily highlight) and clearly distinguishes the tool from graph-mutating siblings by stating '그래프는 안 바꾼다' (does not change the graph). However, it anchors the purpose to '방금 push 한 것 등' (just-pushed things, etc.) and does not mention that styles are applied to selector-matched nodes, so the full scope of the resource is slightly underspecified.

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: use this when you want temporary visual emphasis after pushing elements, and it will not modify graph data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the temporary/read-only-frame nature is clear enough to differentiate it from update_node, push_node, or clear_style.

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