set_appearances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the basic action but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether overrides replace or merge, side effects on properties not specified, permissions needed, or any destructive potential. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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, concise sentence (20 words) that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly improved by explicitly naming the three targets (fill, group, layer) to match the schema's enums.

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 (19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error states, or how parameters interact with the 'target' parameter. The agent would need extensive inference to use this tool correctly.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The tool description does not add any further insights into parameter relationships or usage patterns (e.g., which parameters apply to which target). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('set') and resource ('appearance overrides') for specific targets (fill, group, layer). It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_fill' which deals with standard fill rather than appearance overrides. However, it could be more explicit about what 'appearance overrides' entails.

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 usage for setting dark/tinted mode appearances on various targets, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., 'set_fill', 'toggle_fx'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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