Apply Graphic Style

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent). The description adds genuinely useful execution context — background mode with no Illustrator activation and no Computer Use invocation — but says nothing about what happens to existing appearances or whether target UUIDs must be selected/visible.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the core purpose is front-loaded and the execution-mode note follows as supporting context.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the purpose but omits how the style is identified, what the response looks like, and any failure conditions (e.g., unknown style name or invalid UUIDs).

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 merge/uuids/style_name are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which makes the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Apply a graphic style to objects'), which distinguishes it from sibling apply_text_style by the resource. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling it differs from or clarify how it relates to list_graphic_styles.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as apply_text_style or run_script, and no stated precondition (e.g., that the style name must already exist, discoverable via list_graphic_styles). The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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