Apply Style

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

Annotations already provide `idempotentHint: true` and `openWorldHint: true`, which indicate the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds context about the style types and the linking mechanism, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like whether the style link is persistent or if it overrides existing styles. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate value.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second provides a clear, actionable alternative. Every word earns its place.

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 style application tool with 4 well-documented parameters, an output schema (not shown but indicated), and annotations providing safety hints, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage alternatives, and style types. It could optionally mention that the style link is to a shared library style (implied by 'shared library style') or effects of reapplying, but overall it satisfies the context for selection and invocation.

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 all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions `styleId` and the types of styles, but does not provide additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides for `nodeId`, `nodeName`, `styleId`, or `styleType`. It reinforces the purpose rather than enriching parameter meaning.

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 action: 'Link a node to a shared library style (paint/text/effect/grid) by `styleId`'. It specifies the resource (node), the property (style), and the types of styles. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing `node_set_*` setters for ad-hoc values.

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 explicitly tells when not to use this tool: 'Use the raw `node_set_*` setters for ad-hoc values not backed by a style.' This provides clear guidance on alternatives. However, it does not elaborate on other nuanced scenarios or compare with all siblings, just the specific setter group.

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