design_set_shape_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation but does not explain what happens to omitted style properties (preserved or reset), whether permission or locking constraints apply, or what the operation returns. This is a significant gap for a multi-field mutation tool.

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 tight sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It could be slightly richer, but it is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameters are schema-documented.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It does not describe partial-update behavior, failure modes, or return behavior, which are important for an agent invoking this 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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters already have descriptions, including layerId, fillColor, fillEnabled, strokeColor, strokeWidth, and strokeEnabled. The description adds only a high-level summary ('fill and stroke styles') and does not clarify partial-update semantics or value constraints, so baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('fill and stroke styles of an existing shape layer'), which is more precise than the bare tool name. However, it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as design_update_layer or design_update_fill, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus design_update_layer, design_update_fill, or design_set_blend_mode. It also does not state prerequisites (e.g., the layer must already exist and be a shape layer) or whether partial updates are allowed.

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