apply_color

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'apply color,' implying a mutation, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, reversibility, or that it modifies existing colors. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. Every word is necessary, but the overall value is low due to lack of detail. It is not verbose, but could be improved with more context.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the role of objectIndex, frameIndex, or targetType, nor the result of applying color. The tool's complexity demands a richer description to ensure correct invocation.

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?

The input schema covers 60% of parameters with descriptions, but these descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Color swatch name', 'Object index'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context to the parameters. For parameters like colorType and targetType, which lack schema descriptions, the description fails to clarify their purpose.

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 'Apply color to an object,' which clearly indicates the action (apply color) and the resource (object). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like apply_object_style or set_page_item_properties, which could also involve color. The verb is specific enough, but the lack of distinction lowers it slightly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_object_style or set_page_item_properties. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or examples given, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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