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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the result already contains rendered palette assets and downloads, and it warns against misrepresenting archive anchor colours as recommendations. This gives the agent important output-handling guidance without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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 core purpose, then follows with directly actionable guidance about showing outputs, avoiding a common mistake, and calling palette_finalize when needed. Each sentence earns its place and none are redundant or filler.

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 output schema exists, annotations provide the read-only safety profile, and the input schema fully covers the two parameters, the description completes the picture with workflow directives and output expectations. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and handle its result appropriately.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both palette and use_case. The description mentions LRV analysis and role assignment at a conceptual level, but does not add parameter-level syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific, concrete deliverable: light-mode and dark-mode role maps generated from a palette, with a clear list of analyses (LRV, role assignment, contrast safety, missing neutrals). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling palette tools like palette_analyse or palette_export by stating exactly what is produced.

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 gives clear context for when this tool fits in a workflow: after palette evidence is ready, before presenting recommendations, and specifically calls out when to call palette_finalize. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but it provides enough procedural guidance to route agent behavior correctly.

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