style_visual

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It names the specific visual properties that will be modified (background, corner radius, shadow, header, border color), which is useful. However, it does not disclose that it overrides existing style settings, whether unspecified properties are left unchanged, or any side effects, leaving behavioral 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 one sentence plus an example, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and then immediately provides a concrete illustration, making every element earn its place. This is a model of conciseness.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete for the styling task. However, it omits important contextual details such as whether unspecified properties retain their current values, what the tool returns, and potential error conditions. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 63%, so the baseline is moderate. The description adds context by providing a realistic example (background=#FFFFFF, cornerRadius=8, shadow=true, showHeader=false, borderColor=#E6E9EF) that shows how parameters combine to achieve the card look. However, it does not explain the required parameters (reportSessionId, pageName, visualName), which are self-evident, and the schema already describes the styling parameters individually.

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 a specific, actionable outcome: giving a visual a modern 'floating card' look with concrete properties (background fill, rounded corners, drop shadow, header hiding). This distinguishes it from generic styling tools and sibling tools like set_visual_background that handle only one property. The example further clarifies the expected effect.

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 a use case—apply a floating card style to a single visual—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_visual_background or set_visual_format. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are provided, leaving the guidance largely implicit.

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