Live: apply to selection

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

Description goes beyond annotations by stating the high risk of mutating a user session, the requirement for an explicit approval_token, and that it's semantic-only with no arbitrary code. This adds critical context beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by usage guidance, parameter details, return shape, an example, and risk classification. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 params, high risk, mutation), the description covers all essential aspects: when to use, parameter constraints, return value (LiveEditResult with before/after renders), and risk class. The presence of an output schema is supplemented by description of the return shape.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's semantics: color validation, CSS length for stroke_width, opacity range, transform constraints (dx/dy required together, positive scale, degrees for rotate), and the at-least-one-input requirement.

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 tool applies a validated style/transform to the current live selection. It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives like live_insert_svg and live_set_selected_text.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' section guides the agent to use this for live style/transform editing and lists sibling tools for different tasks (insert, text, headless edits).

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