Style text in a doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a 'direct style change, not a tracked suggestion', which is a key behavioral trait. It also clarifies the span semantics for from/to and the in-place (non-content) nature. However, it does not address failure modes (e.g., non-unique snippet) or reversibility, which would further enhance transparency.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, targeting rules, style list, workflow hint, alternative comparison, and behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses clear structure (semicolons separating the two targeting modes). No filler.

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 9-parameter tool with a nested style object and no output schema, the description plus the rich input schema cover the necessary context. It adds sequencing (get_style first) and behavior (direct vs suggestion). It does not explicitly mention segment/page/tab targeting, but those are fully described in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: the from/to span definition ('from the start of the unique from snippet to the end of the unique to snippet'), the mutual exclusivity with whole_document, and a summary of style properties with units (hex, pt, %). This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter hints.

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+resource: 'Apply styling to existing text in place (no content change)'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting with edit_doc ('Prefer this over rewriting the text with edit_doc'), and the 'no content change' phrase uniquely scopes the operation.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use get_style first to read current spacing/fonts' and 'Prefer this over rewriting the text with edit_doc'. It also explains the two targeting modes (selection vs whole_document) and notes that retyping text risks silent drops, giving a clear when-to-use rationale.

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