set_sketch_entity_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to existing style properties, whether it requires a specific document/sketch context, or whether it has side effects on other entities. It only states the action and selection method.

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 sentence, concise and free of fluff. It front-loads the primary action and resource. However, it's under-specified, which is a completeness issue, not conciseness. Still, for what it says, it's well-structured.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what line_style values are valid, how to reference an entity (what format), and what the tool returns. An agent cannot reliably call this tool without external knowledge.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The tool description does not explain the semantics of 'line_style' (integer, default 1) or how to format 'sketch_ref' or 'document_id'. The 'entity' parameter is an opaque object. The description adds no parameter-level information, so agents cannot correctly construct inputs.

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 clearly states the action (set line style) and the resource (one existing sketch entity), and specifies selection by reference, index, or fingerprint. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_sketch_entity_geometry or clear_sketch_entity_constraints, but the verb and resource are specific enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites (e.g., entity must exist, sketch must be open), nor does it indicate when one selection method (reference vs index vs fingerprint) is preferred. The agent is left to infer usage from the description.

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