sw_set_appearance

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds the affected scopes, but it does not disclose that existing appearance values are overwritten, how multiple target parameters interact, or what transparency values mean semantically.

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 a single front-loaded fragment with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the broader completeness gaps assessed elsewhere.

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 7-parameter mutation tool, the one-line description leaves important context unstated: whether omitted target parameters mean the whole document, how transparency is interpreted (0 vs 1), and how this differs from clearing appearance. Annotations and the schema help, but the description itself is thin.

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 coverage is 71%, so most parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the colour/transparency and target-scope concepts but adds no format or behavioural detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly conveys that this tool sets colour and transparency across several target levels (document, features, components, faces). It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from the closely related sw_clear_appearance or sw_set_material siblings, keeping it below a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sw_clear_appearance or sw_set_material. The target scopes are listed, which implies usage, but the agent receives no when-not conditions or alternative routing.

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