brand_compile

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the outputs (tokens.json, brand-runtime.json, interaction-policy.json) and notes conditional generation when Session 2+ data exists. It also mentions the return values (token counts, clarifications, file list). It does not mention side effects like file overwriting, but for a compile tool this is adequately transparent.

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, with three sentences that front-load the main purpose, followed by specifics on inputs, outputs, and return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview: what it generates, prerequisites, conditional behavior, and return info. It lacks details on error cases or what happens if prerequisites are not met, but these are minor gaps.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so description is not required to add parameter details. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does without needing to describe parameters. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as it adds value beyond the schema.

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 generates DTCG design tokens, brand runtime, and other artifacts from extracted brand data. It explicitly lists the specific extraction tools that should precede it, distinguishing it from sibling tools like brand_extract_* and brand_build_*.

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 provides explicit context by stating 'Use after brand_extract_web, brand_extract_site, brand_extract_visual, or brand_extract_figma,' which clearly indicates when to use the tool and implies not to use it before extraction. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the prerequisite are given.

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