styleset_install

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

Annotations supply only readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and delivers: new styles are added, existing ones replaced or skipped, and dry_run writes nothing. That is genuine mutation/overwrite disclosure beyond the annotation. It omits permission needs, failure/rollback behavior, and the effect of on_conflict='error'.

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 with a colon and a parenthetical; the write semantics come first and the dry_run caveat last. No filler sentences.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the core behavior is covered but key gaps remain: the expect.sha256 integrity check, the relationship/mutual exclusivity of doc, path, and inline styleset, and the third on_conflict mode are all unexplained.

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 83%, so the schema already documents doc, path, dry_run, styleset, and on_conflict. The description echoes the conflict resolution and dry_run semantics but adds no new detail, and is silent on the nested expect.sha256 verification and the 'error' enum value.

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 states a specific verb (Install) and resource (a JSON style set into the document), and the 'JSON' qualifier implicitly separates it from the dotx-oriented siblings styleset_import-dotx/styleset_export-dotx. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

It never states when to use this versus style_create, style_update, styleset_import-dotx, or style_merge, nor any prerequisites (open document, valid style set). The only usage signal is the incidental 'dry_run previews' clause, which is inferential rather than directive.

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