import_style_by_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the source style is published, but says nothing about whether a local style is created, what happens on a key collision, whether it requires network/library access, or how failures surface.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, correctly leading with the action and the resource. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing behavioral detail.

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-style import tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves out the key's origin/format and the post-import result. The agent lacks what it needs to call this correctly and interpret the outcome.

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 single parameter 'key' is undocumented in the schema. The description's 'by key' merely restates the parameter name and gives no format, source, or example for obtaining a valid style key.

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 names a specific verb (Import), a specific resource (a published library style), and the target (into the file), which separates it from import_component_by_key, import_component_set_by_key, and import_variable_by_key. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent between those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. the style must already be published to a library), and no mention of alternatives such as apply_fill_style or get_styles. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the name alone.

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