Apply favorite

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false; the description is consistent and adds real context beyond them: what survives (geometry, position, story) when injecting into Elements, and the full output shape per target. It does not discuss permissions/locks or failure modes beyond the per-element error shape, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then adds target semantics and output in compact, information-dense sentences with zero filler. It is somewhat long and dash-heavy for a two-mode tool, but every clause carries distinct operational meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields per target (favorite, type, variation, target, applied, results, warnings), and it fully covers both modes. The remaining gap is the three boolean apply* toggles and undoName, which the schema documents but the description never contextualizes.

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 already 86%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends the target parameter's meaning by spelling out the downstream consequences of each enum value (future elements inherit settings vs existing same-type elements are modified in place). undoName and the apply* flags are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Applies a favorite') and immediately disambiguates the two operating modes (Defaults vs Elements). An agent can distinguish it from create_favorite, delete_favorite, rename_favorite, and set_tool_defaults without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the two targets and their effect, including the 'like double-clicking it in the Favorites palette' analogy for Defaults and the geometry/position/story preservation for Elements, which tells the agent which mode fits which situation. It lacks an explicit pointer to sibling tools (e.g., get_favorites to discover names, or create_* vs set_* alternatives), so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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