set_style

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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false), so the description's added context matters: it tells the agent this is normally a human-driven action that should be invoked only on request. It still omits whether an existing style is overwritten or what errors occur on an unknown style.

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?

Three short sentences, scope stated first, then user-context, then the usage constraint. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, scope, and the crucial usage restriction. The main gap is side-effect behavior (overwrite semantics, failure modes), which an agent would benefit from knowing before calling.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, including the empty-string fallback and the old-path-after-rename behavior. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (set) and resource (style) plus the two scopes it operates on: a single video (session) or an entire project. It is distinguishable from the sibling create_style, but it never names or contrasts against siblings explicitly.

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 user usually picks it on the app's Assets tab. Only when asked." gives real when-to-use guidance, steering the agent to defer to the UI and only act on explicit request. It does not name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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