Apply Style

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

Annotations include idempotentHint and openWorldHint but no destructive/read-only flags. The description clarifies the action as 'link' but doesn't disclose side effects such as whether existing styles are replaced or what happens if the styleId is invalid. It adds some context beyond annotations but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and action, and the second sentence offers direct, useful alternative guidance. There is no wasted wording.

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 a fully described schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose and usage well. The only minor issue is a slight mismatch between the description's 'paint' and the enum splitting FILL/STROKE, but overall an agent has enough to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The schema already describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning, mainly emphasizing styleId and the distinction from node_set_* setters, but does not introduce details absent from the schema.

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 links a node to a shared library style by styleId, listing the style types in parentheses. It explicitly distinguishes from the node_set_* setters by noting those are for ad-hoc values, so it effectively separates itself from sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance: use this tool for shared library styles, and use node_set_* setters for ad-hoc values not backed by a style. This covers primary use case and an alternative, satisfying the 'when and when-not' criterion.

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