apply_text_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the mutation implication. It does not say whether applying a style overwrites existing text properties, requires the style to already exist locally, or requires specific permissions, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and waste-free. It is appropriate in size, though its brevity comes at the cost of detail rather than being overcooked.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the prerequisites, side-effect information, and parameter constraints needed to invoke it confidently.

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%, and the description does not explain what nodeId or styleId must reference, whether styleId accepts remote/imported style keys, or what happens with a mismatched style type. With two required undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb 'apply' and resource 'text style' on a TEXT node, which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, the sibling list contains near-identical tools like set_text_style and apply_fill_style/apply_stroke_style, and the description offers no differentiation between apply_text_style and set_text_style.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus set_text_style, apply_fill_style, or apply_stroke_style. The only constraint ('to a TEXT node') is an eligibility condition rather than usage guidance, so an agent must infer routing from names alone.

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