set_visual_format

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: properties are merged (preserving untouched objects/properties), types are inferred by kind, and the return value is the changed properties. It does not mention strict-mode behavior or error handling, but the schema covers 'strict'. The description adds significant context beyond the schema.

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 lengthy due to the inline JSON example and type inference list, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds value. The structure is logical: purpose, example, encoding rules, merge behavior, return value. It is dense but not wasteful.

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 complex, flexible tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage, merge behavior, type encoding, and return value. It omits strict-mode details but those are in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for a power user to invoke 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 coverage is 80%, with reportSessionId undocumented. The description enriches formatJson with a concrete JSON example and explains type inference rules (show->bool, text->text, etc.), which are absent from the schema. It also clarifies merge semantics. This goes well beyond the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 'Set ANY formatting on a visual', providing a specific verb and resource. Labeling it the 'universal styling engine' clearly distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like set_visual_title or set_visual_property. The scope is 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 implies this is the go-to tool for any visual formatting ('universal styling engine', 'TOTAL customizability'). It gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This is slightly above implied usage because the 'universal' phrasing sets expectations.

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