style_shape

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 reveals two important behaviors: only supplied fields are changed (partial update), and theme-guarded cells are force-overridden. These go beyond a simple statement and help the agent predict side effects, though it doesn't cover return values or permissions.

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 compact and well-structured: the core purpose first, then color format, then partial-update behavior, then container override capability. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no redundancy.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is moderately adequate. It covers the main purpose, color format, partial updates, and container overrides, but omits guidance on the page parameter, line pattern/weight specifics, and any expected return or post-conditions. It is usable but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 9 parameters. It gives useful color format examples but does not explain most parameters like page, bold, line_pattern, or font_size_pt. The partial-update note covers null defaults implicitly, but the parameter semantics remain largely undocumented.

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 states the verb 'Style' and the target resources: shape, connector, or container. It also clarifies the scope by mentioning that only provided fields are changed and that containers are supported. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like update_shape, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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: use this tool when you need to style a shape, connector, or container, including containers with theme-guarded cells. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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