apply_style_preset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the main behavior: sets defaults for future creation and optionally updates existing elements. It also specifies the conditional nature ('Optionally') of the updating, which is important. It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting current styles or error behavior, but for a style preset tool, the key behavior is transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, each providing essential information. The first sentence states the primary action and the second explains the optional behavior. No redundancy or filler, making it highly effective.

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?

The tool has no output schema and only two parameters, all fully documented. The description covers the core functionality and the optional mode. It lacks details on what happens if the preset name is invalid or how to discover available presets, but these are covered by sibling tools and the schema. Overall, it is complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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 schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what 'defaults' means (font, colors, roundness) and by clarifying that applying the preset affects future creations unless applyToExisting is true. This enriches the user's understanding of the parameters beyond the schema alone.

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 identifies the action ('Apply a style preset to the canvas') and its effect ('Sets defaults... for future element creation'). It also distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like list_style_presets and lookup_style_tokens by stating it actively applies the preset, not just lists or looks up.

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 implies usage context: when you want to set default styles or update existing elements. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., set_canvas_font for just font, or list_style_presets to see available presets). There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned, so it relies on the user to infer.

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