add_theme_visual_style_preset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the structure of cardProperties and the prerequisite, but does not disclose side effects such as whether an existing preset is overwritten, what happens on duplicate presetName, or any permissions required. This is a mutation tool, and the lack of such details leaves gaps.

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 a parenthetical and an inline JSON example. It is information-dense but not overly verbose. The example is essential for understanding cardProperties and earns its place. Slightly sprawling due to the long example, but generally well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the parameter structure with an example, and the prerequisite. No output schema exists, so return value details are not expected. Minor gaps include behavior on conflicts and any constraints on presetName, but the description is sufficiently complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params described). The description adds significant value beyond the schema by providing a concrete JSON example for cardProperties and explaining the mapping (cardName -> property map/array). It also clarifies the role of presetName and visualType in the theme structure. The only param lacking any schema description (reportSessionId) is not addressed, but overall the description enriches parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Add a NAMED visual-style PRESET to the theme', clearly distinguishing it from related tools like generate_theme or set_theme_* tools. It also explains the mechanism ('so a visual can opt into a look') and the underlying data structure (theme.visualStyles[visualType][presetName]), making the purpose 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 explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Run generate_theme first.' This provides clear context on when this tool should be used relative to theme creation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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