style_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether deletion is permanent or undoable, whether a style currently applied to content can be removed, whether built-in/default styles are protected, or what happens to text using the deleted style.

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?

Three words are not concise so much as under-specified; the description fits on one line and is front-loaded, but it omits everything an agent would need, so brevity here is a deficit rather than an efficiency.

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 destructive, 3-parameter tool with two required arguments, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum state the scope of deletion across the three style types and any guard conditions (style in use, default styles), none of which is covered anywhere else.

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 only 33%: 'name' and 'type' carry no descriptions at all, and only 'document_id' is documented. The description supplies no compensating meaning for the undocumented parameters (e.g., whether 'name' is case-sensitive, whether the style must exist, or what the enum values imply for scope of deletion).

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?

"Delete a style" names a verb and a resource, so the basic purpose lands. But it is close to a restatement of the tool name and does not distinguish this from sibling delete tools (master_delete, layer_delete, section_delete, color_swatch_delete) or indicate that it spans paragraph, character, and object style types via the required 'type' enum.

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, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as style_duplicate or the style_list* tools for inspecting styles first. The agent must infer entirely from the name and schema.

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