clear_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key destructive behavior (omitting style_id clears everything), which is important risk information. However, it doesn't mention reversibility, permission requirements, or response behavior. The cryptic '[5-D]' reference adds no behavioral clarity.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the key parameter behavior follows immediately. The cryptic '[5-D]' token is unnecessary but doesn't significantly detract from the efficient structure.

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 is simple (1 param, 0 required) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the core behavior adequately. However, the unexplained '[5-D]' reference and lack of edge-case guidance (e.g., what happens when style_id references a nonexistent style) leave minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the null semantics (omitting style_id clears all), which adds meaning beyond the schema's default:null. However, it doesn't specify what format style_id should take or how it relates to other tools' style parameters.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'Clears AI style'. Distinguishes from siblings like clear_layer and clear_all by specifying the target (AI style). However, the '[5-D]' notation is cryptic without context, and it's unclear whether this refers to a specific style type or internal reference.

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?

Provides one useful usage condition: omitting style_id clears all styles. But it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like clear_layer or clear_all, nor does it state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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