set_button_style_verified

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

The description mentions verification but does not disclose what happens on failure, whether it retries, or side effects. The wait_ms and poll_ms parameters imply polling but are not explained. No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden but is insufficient.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, which is concise but lacks necessary detail about parameters and usage. It is efficient but under-specified.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no schema descriptions or annotations, output schema exists but not described), the description is incomplete. It does not cover the meaning of parameters, expected output, or behavioral implications.

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 0%, yet the description provides no parameter information. The 9 parameters, including wait_ms and poll_ms for verification, are not explained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.

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 button style changes and verifies if the output changed. This distinguishes it from siblings like set_button_style (set only) and verify_button_render_change (verify only).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like set_button_style or verify_button_render_change. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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