style_page

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it skips non-data visuals and performs a bulk 'one-shot' pass, which is useful. However, it omits side effects like overwriting existing styles, reversibility, or any destructive implications.

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 no fluff. The first sentence introduces the action and scope, the second adds a complementary pairing tip. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 and lack of annotations/output schema, the description covers the key behavior and scope well. It could add more about side effects or prerequisites, but for a styling operation it is sufficiently complete.

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 71%, so baseline is 3. The description maps to four parameters (fill, rounded corners, shadow, header) and adds intent, but doesn't describe the required IDs or all parameters like borderColor. It doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented required params.

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 clearly states the tool applies a consistent card style to every DATA visual on a page, with specific attributes (fill, rounded corners, shadow, header). It distinguishes from siblings like style_visual (individual) and set_page_background (page background).

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?

Explicitly mentions pairing with set_page_background, and clarifies scope (every DATA visual) and exclusions (skips textboxes/shapes). Provides clear context for when to use, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for individual styling.

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