Manage Style

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the currentStyleName requirement but omits side effects on existing nodes, whether update overwrites properties, what happens if the style doesn't exist, or permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant words or filler.

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?

The complex nested schema and output schema cover field-level details, but the description lacks complete contextual guidance on mutation behavior, side effects, or failure modes. It's minimally sufficient for a well-schema'd tool.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond restating that styleId switches to update mode and currentStyleName is required, which is also present in 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 creates or updates named styles (paint/text/effect/grid), and distinguishes between create (no styleId) and update (with styleId) modes. This differentiates it from siblings like style_delete and style_list.

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?

It gives explicit usage conditions: use create when no styleId is provided, and update with styleId plus currentStyleName. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it versus alternatives like node_apply_style, but the create/update branching provides clear context.

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