apply_style_preset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool applies a preset but doesn't explain what 'apply' entails operationally - whether this modifies existing content, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens to existing styling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 - just two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. Every element earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 single-parameter tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details about the mutation behavior, side effects, or what 'applying' a preset actually means operationally. The completeness is borderline adequate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear enum for the single parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (no syntax details, format explanations, or usage examples). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Apply a style preset to ensure consistent, professional design.' It specifies the action (apply) and resource (style preset) with a quality goal (consistent, professional design). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'detect_style_preset' or 'get_active_preset', which are related but different operations.

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 usage guidance: 'ALWAYS use this before creating sections.' This gives clear temporal context (when to use) and implies it's a prerequisite for other operations. While it doesn't name specific alternatives, the 'ALWAYS' directive provides strong operational guidance.

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