style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the tool loads a style as inspiration, but does not clarify whether it mutates the current selection or just returns style information. The example suggests it applies the style, but the effect on the design state is not explicitly stated.

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 concise with two sentences and an example. It is front-loaded, to the point, and every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and provides an example. It is nearly complete, though it could explicitly state what the tool affects (e.g., current selection) for full clarity.

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% with a clear description for the 'name' parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing an example and explaining the inspiration philosophy, which aids correct 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?

The description clearly states the tool loads a visual style preset for inspiration. It specifies the resource (visual style preset), the action (load as inspiration), and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it's a reference library, not a rigid constraint.

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 provides clear guidance on how to use the tool: pick wholesale, mix elements, or invent your own. It implies the tool is for inspiration rather than strict application, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for direct styling.

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