vibeside_override_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Live-override' implies a runtime mutation of the current page, but it does not disclose persistence across navigation, reversibility/cleanup, whether a browser connection is required, or what the call returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and target are stated immediately and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description omits key operational context such as the connection/tab prerequisite and how overrides are undone. The rich schema (100% coverage, defaults, nested styles map) covers parameters, so the remaining gap is behavioral rather than structural.

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 inline, important, styles, and selector all documented including defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: overriding CSS styles on an element in the active page. It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like vibeside_extract_styles, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for instant vibe-coding experimentation' hints at the intended context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an active tab or prior vibeside_connect), and no mention of alternatives such as vibeside_extract_styles or a way to revert overrides.

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