update_styles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key behaviors: inert styles are dropped and returned under ignoredStyles, top/left on artboards move the canvas, and paper-gen URLs require explicit user request and guide reading. This is substantial, though it does not cover all potential side effects (e.g., reversibility, permission requirements).

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then uses concise bullets for important caveats. Every sentence adds actionable information without fluff. The structure is easy to scan and understand.

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 complexity (array of updates, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers key behavioral aspects like batch support, ignored styles, and URL handling. It does not mention error handling or return format beyond ignoredStyles, but for a style update tool, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly in most cases.

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?

While the schema already documents all parameters (coverage 100%), the description adds meaning by noting that top/left on artboards affect position, and that design tokens can be used as CSS variables. It also explains the ignoredStyles return property, which relates to parameter outcomes. This goes beyond the schema's 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 (update), the resource (styles on nodes), and the scope (one or more nodes, targeted changes). It also highlights batch support. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_nodes (positions) and set_text_content (text), making its purpose 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 explicitly says 'Use this for targeted style changes,' providing a clear context of use. It also gives specific guidance for edge cases (top/left on artboards, paper-gen URLs, ignoredStyles). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for other types of changes or exclusion scenarios, which prevents a 5.

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