style_create

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, confirming this is a write. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what is created, what happens if the id/name already exists, that dry_run previews, or that the styled doc is modified on disk. With a mutation tool and nested formatting objects, the one-phrase description leaves the behavioral burden entirely on the schema.

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?

A single three-word sentence with zero waste and the action front-loaded, but it is terse to the point of being uninformative for a 14-parameter tool. Concise, not padded, yet barely a sentence.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with nested run/paragraph objects, enum-driven type selection, an expect/sha256 guard, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits style kinds, formatting semantics, and any mention of the dry_run/expect safety mechanisms the schema exposes.

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 93%, so nearly all 14 parameters (id, run, paragraph, based_on, link, next, type, dry_run, expect, etc.) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing extra, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Add a style" merely restates the tool name style_create (verb+resource) without adding meaning — it does not clarify what a 'style' is in the docx model or what distinguishes this creation call from siblings like style_update, style_rename, or style_merge.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. The agent gets no cue for choosing style_create over style_rename, style_update, style_merge, or styleset_import-dotx, and no prerequisites (e.g., the doc must be open or exist) are given.

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