style_highlight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'highlight uid (confirm positioning)' without explaining side effects, permanence, visibility requirements, or interaction with the page. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and intent without any wasted words. This is appropriately concise for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description is too sparse to be fully contextual. It does not explain how highlight behaves (e.g., temporary visual cue, scroll-to-element), what happens if no element matches the uid, or how the optional selectors refine the target. This could lead to misuse in complex UI scenarios.

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 75% with documented optional parameters (index, urlIncludes, titleIncludes) and an undocumented uid. The description adds that uid is the element to highlight, but does not elaborate on how the optional selectors work together. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries most parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'highlight' with a resource 'uid' and adds the purpose 'confirm positioning', which clarifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like style_find or style_status, but the action is clear enough to infer its role.

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 context: use when you need to confirm the location of a uid. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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