style_gradient

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the gradient is defined and used with fill, implying a creation or configuration action, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on invocation (e.g., adds to a document, modifies existing styles), or any side effects. The description is too sparse to inform the agent adequately.

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 concise with two short sentences, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative—the brevity comes at the cost of clarity. It's front-loaded with the main action but lacks depth, making it efficient in length but not in communicative value.

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 the complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's role in the context of sibling tools (e.g., vs. 'style_fill'), what it returns, or how it integrates with other operations. For a parameter-rich tool with no structured support, the description should provide more contextual guidance to be adequate.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 12 parameters (e.g., type, stops, id, coordinates). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the 'id' is used in 'url(#id)', which is already inferred from the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 '그라디언트를 정의합니다. fill에 url(#id)로 사용합니다.' (Defines a gradient. Use with fill as url(#id).) is vague and tautological. It restates the tool name 'style_gradient' without specifying what action it performs (e.g., creates, applies, modifies) or what resource it acts on. It mentions usage with 'fill' but doesn't clarify if this is for SVG elements or other contexts, making the purpose unclear.

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 minimal guidance: it suggests using the gradient with 'fill' via 'url(#id)', but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'style_fill' or 'style_pattern'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., for SVG styling), or exclusions, leaving the agent with little direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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