style_update

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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about the existence of a dry_run preview, the sha256/expect concurrency guard, whether omitted keys are left untouched, or that null removes a key. For a mutation tool with near-zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the verb, the target and the changeable facets with no filler. Efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a 10-parameter mutation tool.

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?

With 10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is thin: it never mentions dry_run preview, the expect/sha256 optimistic-concurrency check, or that doc is a required .docx path. An agent could invoke it but would miss safety-relevant behavior.

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 90%, so the schema already documents doc, run, link, next, quick, based_on, paragraph, dry_run and expect. The description echoes the field groups but adds no syntax, format or precedence detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?

Clear verb (Change) plus resource (style) and enumerates the mutable facets: parent, next/link styles, quick flag, formatting. An agent can tell it apart from style_create or style_rename. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives in the sibling list (style_create for new styles, style_rename for renaming, style_merge for consolidation). The agent is left to infer that this tool only mutates existing styles.

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