Editar estilo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It doesn't say whether changes are persistent, whether deletion is reversible, what happens to existing presets with the same name, or that a delete object triggers destructive removal.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the core actions, followed by a brief rationale sentence. No filler, though the second sentence is low-value.

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 7-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits destructive semantics of delete, activation behavior, persistence, and doesn't compensate for the 14% schema coverage gap.

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 only 14%, but the nested schema is self-documenting for many fields (enums, effects schema reference). The description lists the main operation categories (style, preset, recipe, color) which maps to top-level params, but adds no syntax or format detail for the 7 poorly-documented params.

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 specific verbs and resources: activating a style and adding/editing text presets, effect recipes, or named colors. It clearly distinguishes the tool's scope from siblings like ps_style_list or ps_fonts, though it doesn't name an alternative for read operations.

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?

It implies usage ('útil para afinar lo que el análisis dedujo') referencing a prior analysis step, but never states when to use this over ps_style_analyze or ps_capture_style, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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