brand_compile_messaging

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral effects: returns structured questions in 'interview' mode, saves to messaging.yaml in 'record' mode, and adds voice constraints/tone rules to the brand runtime. It also mentions return of section status, but does not detail the format or side effects like overwriting existing data.

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?

Every sentence adds value, with front-loaded purpose and structured breakdown of coverage areas. Slightly verbose but efficient for the information density. Could be tightened by removing redundancy with schema descriptions.

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 no output schema, the description mentions 'Returns section status' but does not specify the structure or possible values. It also omits details on the shape of voice constraints and tone rules added to the runtime. For a tool with 3 parameters and enums, it is adequate but leaves some ambiguity for agent invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description largely repeats schema descriptions for mode and section, adding minimal extra context (e.g., 'structured questions' vs schema's 'returns questions for missing sections'). It does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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?

Description explicitly states the tool defines brand voice, messaging, and story via a guided interview. It lists specific trigger phrases and distinguishes from sibling brand_extract_messaging, making the purpose clear and actionable.

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?

Description provides clear context on when to use (trigger phrases) and a prerequisite (use after brand_extract_messaging). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with other siblings like brand_compile or brand_build_* for similar tasks.

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