define_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers substantial behavioral detail: auto-backup with prev/anchor slots, backup=False behavior, atomic validated save, and refusal to operate on documents open in Word. This goes well beyond the schema and gives an agent important expectations before invoking.

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 three dense, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then workflow, then key behavioral and safety details, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 complexity of 9 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is not exhaustive, but it provides strong context: the get_styles shape link, backup behavior, and Word-open refusal. The output schema exists, so return-value handling does not need elaboration. A bit more parameter-level detail would make it fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only adds semantics for backup and general 'full formatting control.' It does not explain style_type, based_on, next_style, or the structure of character_formatting and paragraph_formatting, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 specific language: 'Create or replace a custom style (paragraph or character) with full formatting control.' This clearly identifies the operation, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from style-application siblings like apply_style and apply_character_style by framing it as definition, not application.

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 gives clear workflow guidance by pointing to get_styles as the read counterpart and explaining that cloning is 'one read + one define.' It does not explicitly mention apply_style or other alternatives, but the context for when to use define_style is clear.

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