Optimize Style Tool

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds specific optimizations performed, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool returns an optimized style without modifying the original, which would align with the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and specific optimizations.

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 that the schema has 2 parameters with 100% coverage and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for an AI to understand the tool's purpose. It could briefly mention that the output is an optimized style, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the general actions but not the parameter constraints or formats.

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 specifies the action 'Optimizes' and the resource 'Mapbox styles', listing specific optimizations: removing unused sources, duplicate layers, and simplifying expressions. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like validate_style_tool or preview_style_tool.

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 implies when to use (to optimize a style) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it doesn't suggest validating before optimizing or mention that optimization might alter the visual output.

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