style_stroke

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 '설정합니다' (sets), implying a mutation, but does not disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing stroke styles, or any rate limits. 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 and front-loaded, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or usage context, making it inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results.

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 all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 선 스타일을 설정합니다' (Sets the stroke style of an object) clearly states the verb ('설정합니다' - sets) and resource ('객체의 선 스타일' - stroke style of an object), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'style_fill' or 'style_gradient' beyond mentioning 'stroke', which is somewhat vague about scope and distinction.

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 lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing an existing object, or comparisons to other styling tools like 'style_fill' or 'style_gradient', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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