Apply a different palette to a design, rebuilding its block roles while leaving literal blocks untouched, so you can swap materials for late-game variants.
Builds the design's roles from another palette, such as a late-game one; literal blocks stay as they are.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| design | Yes | ||
| palette | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: 'literal blocks stay as they are', which tells the agent what is preserved. It does not say whether existing role assignments are overwritten, whether the change is undoable, or what the response contains, so the safety profile remains ambiguous.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the preservation clause is attached economically. It is terse rather than padded, though the terseness shades into under-specification.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a two-parameter mutation with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description leaves too much unresolved: parameter identity/format and the effect on pre-existing roles. An agent could not reliably call this without guessing.
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 0% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate. It implicitly identifies `palette` as the source of the mapping and `design` as the target, but never says whether either is a name, an ID, or an index, nor what makes a palette valid.
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 verb-and-resource pair ('Builds the design's roles from another palette') signals an assignment/mapping operation on a design, which is more than a restatement of the name. But 'roles' is unexplained domain jargon and it doesn't clearly separate this from siblings like `palettes`, `materials`, or `replace`, which plausibly overlap.
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 only usage cue is the fragment 'such as a late-game one', which hints at when a particular palette is appropriate. There is no statement of prerequisites (must the palette exist?), no when-not guidance, and no alternative tool named for the related tasks a user might actually want.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.