Apply Text Style

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavioral context: it runs without activating Illustrator in default background mode and never uses Computer Use, which tells an agent this is safe to run headlessly. It does not, however, disclose what clear_overrides destroys or how failures surface.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is somewhat tangential to purpose but still carries useful execution-mode information, so it earns its place.

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?

Parameters and annotations are fully specified, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a successful call returns, whether the operation is reversible (an 'undo' sibling exists), or how to recover from a failed application. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutating tool.

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 all four parameters documented, including the style_type enum, so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, matching the baseline 3.

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 character or paragraph style to a text frame') and the style_type enum narrows it precisely. This distinguishes it from siblings like apply_graphic_style and list_text_styles without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb (apply an existing style to a text frame) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of how to discover valid style names (e.g. list_text_styles), and no statement of when to prefer apply_graphic_style instead.

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