style_text_range

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a mutation operation ('Apply') but lacks details on idempotency, error handling, node type requirements, or whether existing ranges are overwritten. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds 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?

For a per-range styling tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, it lacks details on range behavior (ordering, overlapping), return value, and prerequisites (text node existence). Schema descriptions partially compensate, but overall completeness is moderate.

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% with both parameters described (nodeId and ranges). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning 'character ranges' which aligns with the ranges parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the work.

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?

Description clearly states the tool applies mixed styling to character ranges within a text node. It specifies a unique action (per-range styling) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_fill or batch_set_font which apply uniform styling. However, it could be more explicit about the styling properties (fontSize, fontWeight, color, textDecoration) that the schema shows.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not provide when-not-to-use scenarios or mention sibling tools that might be better suited for uniform styling. The use case is implied ('style specific character ranges differently') but not explicitly stated.

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