Style objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about whether the change is reversible/undoable, what happens with invalid or missing object names, whether it requires the objects to exist, or how errors surface. Only the surface effect ('look') is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leads with the core action and then lists options; no filler. The dense comma list is slightly hard to parse but earns its length.

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?

A 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 40% schema coverage needs more than a property list. The required 'names' parameter, mutation semantics, error behavior, and return value are all unaddressed, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 40%, so the description must compensate. It does list most updatable fields (color, visibility, label, caption, thickness, line style, point size, fill, fixed) and clarifies caption as 'text shown instead of the name', which is helpful. However it omits the required 'names' parameter entirely and adds no format/syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Change how objects look') and enumerates the style properties affected, so the agent knows this mutates visual attributes rather than geometry. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ggb_run_commands, which could plausibly also set style.

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 guidance, no mention of prerequisites (the target objects must already exist), and no reference to an alternative tool. The usage context is only weakly implied by the verb 'Change'.

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