set_global_wildcard_defaults

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose two important nuances: the merge behavior ('merged into any existing defaults') and the '$id':'default' quirk for targeting the card card. However, it stops short of describing side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to existing defaults in detail.

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?

Three dense, information-packed sentences with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first states purpose, the second explains the props format, and the third highlights a critical special case. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, the props structure, the merge behavior, and a potential quirk. Minor gaps include the lack of reportSessionId description and no mention of error handling or return behavior, but these are standard for session/context parameters.

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 schema covers 'props' with an example, but the description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the JSON structure ({ cardName: {prop:value} | [{prop:value}] }) and the quirk. 'reportSessionId' is left undocumented in both schema and description, which is a gap given the 50% coverage, but the props explanation compensates well.

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 ('Set'), identifies the resource ('theme's GLOBAL WILDCARD defaults'), and clarifies scope ('every card of every visual in one shot'). The wildcard concept distinguishes it from other theme-set tools (e.g., set_theme_data_colors, set_theme_structural_colors) even without naming them.

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 implies usage for one-shot global house-style formatting via the phrase 'in one shot', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The 'merged into any existing defaults' hint gives some context but no direct guidance.

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