Manage Style

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

Despite the openWorldHint annotation, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether update is full replacement or partial, error conditions, or permission requirements. The description only states the basic action without elaborating on known side effects.

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 one concise sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no superfluous information.

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?

Given the complex schema with full coverage and presence of output schema, the description adequately captures the essential create/update duality. It does not explain all sub-parameter behaviors, but the schema handles those details.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema (e.g., create vs update based on styleId), and the schema's styleId description already conveys that. No additional param semantics provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('create' or 'update') and resource ('named style'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like style_delete, style_list, and node_apply_style by focusing on creation and update of style definitions.

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 implicitly suggests when to use (create vs update based on styleId presence) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparison with alternatives like node_apply_style or style_delete. Usage is implied by the tool's name and sibling list.

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