style_set

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, so repeated calls are safe. The description adds 'Set' which aligns with the write nature, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like conflict resolution or side effects. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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 very concise—one sentence plus examples. The examples are front-loaded and valuable, showing usage. No unnecessary words, though a tiny bit more structure could improve scanability.

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 simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema, the description with examples is nearly complete. It covers the primary usage pattern, though it doesn't mention error handling or default values.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). However, the description provides examples (e.g., 'lang=ru') that imply the key-value pattern, partially compensating. This gives the agent a basic understanding but lacks formal definitions of allowed keys or formats.

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 ('Set') and the resource ('stylistic running rule'), with examples that illustrate the pattern. It distinguishes from sibling tools by its specific focus on style rules, which is unique among the many tools listed.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without usage boundaries.

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