brand_deepen_identity

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

Discloses that 'interview' mode returns questions for missing sections, 'record' saves answers to visual-identity.yaml, and anti-patterns become enforceable rules in brand_preflight. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not detail overwrite behavior or rate limits, but overall 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?

Concise, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: explains what it does, modes, sections, and linking to brand_preflight. 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?

For a tool with multiple modes and sections, the description covers the workflow (using after Session 1), the six sections, and the return value (section completion status). No output schema exists, but the return is described. Slightly missing details on how 'record' handles multiple records per section or idempotency, but generally 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% with all parameters documented. The description adds context about the workflow (Session 2) and links anti-patterns to brand_preflight, but largely repeats schema descriptions. Baseline is 3 given high coverage; marginal extra context justifies a 3.

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: defining visual identity rules beyond colors and fonts, covering composition, patterns, illustration, photography, signature moves, and anti-patterns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it's Session 2, to be used after core identity extraction.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use after Session 1 (core identity extracted)'. Provides context for when to use each mode ('interview' vs 'record'). Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tool list and workflow context make it clear.

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