apply_view_formatting_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain the effects of applying the update (e.g., whether it overwrites existing formatting, is reversible, requires permissions, or returns a result). The only hint is the 'previously previewed' precondition, which adds minimal context.

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 that front-loads the action verb and resource. It contains no wasted words and is easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description does not fully elaborate the workflow. It implies a prior preview step but never explicitly states to use preview_view_formatting_update, nor does it describe any side effects or return values. Overall, it is minimally viable but leaves gaps in operational context.

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?

The schema has only one parameter, previewId, with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description's 'previously previewed' gives a vague hint that the previewId must come from a preview operation, but it does not specify where to obtain it or that it is the ID returned by preview_view_formatting_update. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Apply'), a clear resource ('view formatting update'), and a scope ('previously previewed'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like preview_view_formatting_update and apply_view_update by emphasizing that the update must have been previewed first.

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 phrase 'previously previewed' gives clear context that this tool should be used after a preview operation, implying a workflow. However, it does not explicitly name the alternate tool to use for previewing (preview_view_formatting_update) or exclude other apply tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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