apply_grid_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation but does not disclose whether applying a style replaces existing grids, whether it is reversible, what permissions or preconditions are required, or what happens on failure. Only the barest mutation signal is conveyed.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately compact for the action, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot confidently call it without knowing what the IDs must reference or how existing grids are affected.

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% for both required parameters (nodeId, styleId). The description implies a frame (nodeId) and a style (styleId) but adds no format, ID-source, or constraint detail, so it barely compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 a specific verb (apply) and resource (grid style) plus the target ('a frame's layout grids'), which is clearer than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling operations like set_layout_grids or create_grid_style, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as set_layout_grids (which also touches layout grids) or the parallel apply_fill_style/apply_stroke_style family. No prerequisites, e.g. that the style must already exist, are stated.

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