brand_clarify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It states that the tool 'returns updated identity and remaining clarification count' and supports natural language input. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 concise at three sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each sentence adds essential context: purpose, usage context, and return value. No redundant or missing information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return values (updated identity and remaining count). The parameters are well-documented in both schema and description. The tool's simplicity means no additional behavioral context is necessary.

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% for both parameters. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by providing examples of valid answers (e.g., hex colors, role names, natural language sentences), which clarifies the expected format and reduces ambiguity.

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 tool's purpose: 'Resolve an ambiguous brand value interactively.' It specifies the context (after brand_compile) and the types of clarifications (wrong primary color, unknown font, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tools like brand_compile.

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 explicitly mentions using this tool 'after brand_compile' and gives examples of when to invoke it (e.g., wrong primary color). It does not exclude scenarios or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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