style_fill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it 'sets' the fill, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether changes are reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on invalid inputs, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with critical details if expanded. There is no wasted text.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially compared to sibling tools that may have similar styling functions.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('objectId' and 'fill') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on the 'fill' parameter values. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '객체의 채우기를 설정합니다' (Sets the fill of an object) clearly states the verb ('설정합니다' - sets) and resource ('객체의 채우기' - object's fill), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'style_stroke' or 'style_gradient' that also modify object styling, nor does it specify what type of objects or context this applies to.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over other style tools like 'style_stroke' or 'style_gradient', nor does it indicate any prerequisites, such as needing an existing object or specific object types. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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