create_style

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond them: it creates a folder with status 'new' and returns an ordered set of steps. The 'keeps or trashes it' framing usefully signals the result is provisional and discardable, though nothing is said about auth or rate limits.

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 action and its inputs are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by creation outcome and the downstream user step. Three sentences with little waste, though the closing sentence about comparison on the Styles board is more narrative than operational.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing the returned pipeline steps and the provisional 'new' status of the created style folder. Complete enough to call the tool correctly; only the relationship to set_style and variant tools remains unaddressed.

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 all four parameters are already documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description enumerates accepted source kinds (link, video, image, words), which adds slight meaning over the schema's 'link, file path or words' but does not clarify name/template usage.

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 ('Start a new style from an example'), plus the kinds of source material accepted, so an agent knows exactly what gets created. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling set_style (which presumably applies an existing style), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 through the intended flow ('The user compares it with the other styles on the Styles board and keeps or trashes it'), which conveys the create-then-evaluate context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no alternative named relative to set_style or the variant tools.

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