build_custom_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, authorization needs, or whether it overwrites existing tokens. The description lacks crucial transparency about the tool's effects.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: first states what it does, second gives when-to-use and output. No fluff.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and output. It does not explain error states or prerequisites, but for a build token system, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description groups parameters into paper, accent, font, adding some context. However, it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 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 clearly states it builds a custom OKLCH token system from scratch with paper color, accent color, and font pairing. It specifies output (tokens.css + Tailwind v4 @theme block). This distinguishes it from siblings like generate_tokens (likely predefined) and palette_fetch (retrieval).

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use when a brief signals creative-intent (brand color, multi-vibe aesthetic, explicit custom request).' This helps the agent decide when to invoke. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but the guidance is clear.

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