clear_visual_styling

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: lists exactly which decorative keys are removed, which are preserved (titles, overlays, navigation actions, data/conditional formatting), and that actionButton visuals are skipped entirely. It also discloses safety improvements and return values.

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?

Although dense, every sentence adds distinct value: what is removed, what is preserved, what is never touched, the replacement of a buggy behavior, scope defaults, and the opt-in aggressive flag. No filler or tautology.

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 description is fully complete for this tool's complexity: it explains scope, safety, destructive actions, preservation guarantees, and return values. No output schema exists, but the description states exactly what is returned. This is exceptional coverage.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains omit behavior for pageName/visualName, the default and effect of removeTitles, and the whiteBackground effect. This complements the schema's 80% coverage with contextual usage details.

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 ('FLATTEN'), names the exact resource ('each visual's vcObjects'), and clearly scopes the operation (decorative chrome removed, deliberate formatting preserved). It also distinguishes itself from a prior buggy implementation, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool and how to control behavior: it explains the safe default (preserve titles/overlays), how to opt into aggressive behavior (removeTitles=true), and the scope semantics for pageName/visualName. It also contrasts with the old buggy flatten, giving clear usage context.

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