bricks_update_theme_styles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses merge mode (default true) and responsive breakpoint support, but does not mention potential destructive behavior (e.g., overwriting with merge=false), authorization needs, or return values. The update nature implies mutation, but more behavioral context would improve 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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding key details. Every sentence earns its place: first states the action, second explains merge and responsive features. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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 complexity (nested objects, responsive keys) and absence of output schema, the description covers the main functional aspects: merge mode and breakpoint support. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator) or error cases. It is mostly complete but could mention return value for full context.

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. The description reiterates merge mode and responsive keys, which are already detailed in the schema's theme_styles description. It adds a high-level summary but offers no new parameter meaning beyond the schema. The example in the description is similar to the schema's example.

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 'Update Bricks Builder global Theme Styles,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like bricks_get_theme_styles (read) and other update tools by focusing on global theme styles. The mention of merge mode and responsive breakpoints adds nuance without cluttering the purpose.

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 includes context on merge mode and responsive breakpoints but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bricks_update_global_class or bricks_update_global_css. It implies usage for theme styles, but lacks direct comparison or exclusions, which would help an AI agent decide.

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