set_symbol_style

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'set visual style properties', implying a mutation, but provides no details on side effects, reversibility, or error behavior. The 'Phase B stub' hint suggests incompleteness but does not explain what the tool actually does when called.

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 concise but overly terse. It front-loads the purpose, yet omits necessary parameter details and usage context. The phrase 'Phase B stub' is an extra note that does not contribute to usability, making the structure acceptable but not ideal.

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 tool with three required parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected format of style_properties, mention return values (even though an output schema exists), or provide context on how it fits with other diagram editing tools. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without further information.

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. It fails to clarify the format of the 'style_properties' parameter (e.g., JSON, key-value pairs, or specific style names). The other parameters (diagram_id, element_id) are self-explanatory, but the critical style_properties remains ambiguous.

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 'set' and the resource 'diagram symbol', specifying the action is on visual style properties. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_type or set_multiplicity by focusing on style. The phrase 'Phase B stub' is additional context but does not obscure the core purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for style changes while other set_* tools handle other property types, nor does it indicate prerequisites or use cases. The 'Phase B stub' note is not a usage guideline.

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