design_apply_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the concrete mutation: a new styles:reference guide layer is added to the current sketch, making it an additive rather than destructive operation. It omits whether the sketch must be open/selected, what happens on an invalid recipeId, and whether the layer is reversible.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the operation and its effect stated immediately; no filler. The trailing "with palette and guidance" is the only mildly redundant portion.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the main missing piece is the result: there is no output schema, and the description doesn't say what the agent gets back or how to confirm the layer was applied. It also never anchors the tool to the recipe-discovery siblings needed to supply recipeId.

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% and the single recipeId parameter is already documented with a format example in the schema, so the description adds nothing beyond the reference to recipes in general. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 and resource ("Apply a style recipe") and adds the mechanism ("adding a styles:reference guide layer ... with palette and guidance"), which distinguishes it from generic guide tools like design_add_guide and from filter siblings like design_apply_grain. It never names a sibling to contrast with design_get_style or design_get_recipe, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the obvious prerequisites in the sibling set (design_search_styles, design_list_recipes, design_get_recipe) that must run before a recipeId exists. Usage is only implied by "the current sketch".

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