Manage Style

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint: true, which is minimal. The description does not disclose behavioral details such as whether updates overwrite existing properties, what happens on invalid styleId, or any permissions or side effects. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating create and update scenarios.

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?

Despite high complexity (6 params, nested objects, many sub-properties) and an output schema, the description does not address return values, errors, or edge cases. It lacks completeness for a tool with such rich inputs.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully describes parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that `styleId` distinguishes between create and update, but does not provide additional meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool can create or update named styles of specified types (paint/text/effect/grid). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like style_list and style_delete by focusing on creation and update.

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 implies when to use this tool (create or update) based on the presence of `styleId`, but does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention alternatives like node_apply_style for applying styles to nodes.

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