style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies mutation via define/update/delete and hints that delete can cascade ('replace_with?'), but says nothing about reversibility, permissions, side effects on existing content, or what applying a style does to the target range. For a multi-action mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single dense, front-loaded line: purpose first, then action-by-action signatures with optional markers. No filler, though the compact signature syntax is terse enough that parsing it takes some effort.

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 12-parameter tool with nested CharProps/ParaProps objects, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action surface but omits return info (e.g., what list returns), defaults, and the semantics of several params. It is not enough on its own for confident invocation.

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 only 33% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does add real value by mapping which parameters belong to which action (e.g., apply uses range+name, delete uses name+replace_with). However it does not explain the meaning of ambiguous params like base, next, or eng_name, leaving much semantic work undone.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('스타일 정의·적용' = style definition/application) and enumerates the concrete operations (list/define/update/apply/delete). An agent can tell this tool manipulates document styles, distinct from siblings like char_format and para_format. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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 action list implies usage but never states when to choose this tool over char_format/para_format/numbering, nor any prerequisites. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, only a signature enumeration.

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