thincms_patch_css

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains key behaviors: replacement only between markers, auto-extraction with matching markers, rejection for different markers, and dry run behavior. It also hints at production write protection via confirmProductionWrite. Missing details about required permissions or side effects on the rest of the stylesheet, but these are not critical.

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 well-structured: first sentence establishes purpose, then explains markers, critical input rules in caps, and practical recommendation. It is concise at 5 sentences with zero wasted words and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: marker-based replacement, input requirements, dry run, and site targeting. It does not describe the return value or how to identify existing markers, but these are minor omissions. Overall, it equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond schema descriptions. It clarifies that 'css' should be only body content, explains auto-extraction for 'cssFile', details marker format for 'section', recommends 'dryRun' for large patches, and describes 'siteId' as a concurrent-session pattern. This rich context far exceeds baseline.

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 states the action: 'Replace a named section of the stylesheet between comment markers.' It specifies the verb 'replace' and the resource 'named section of the stylesheet,' with the comment marker mechanism providing precise scope. This distinguishes it from general CSS modification tools like thincms_append_css, which appends rather than replaces.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: use dryRun for large patches, avoid sending full stylesheets, and understand marker auto-extraction. It also warns about rejection for mismatched sections. However, it does not compare this tool to alternatives like thincms_append_css, leaving the agent to infer when to use each.

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