brand_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses the pipeline steps (extract, compile, generate, etc.), mode behaviors, and results. However, it does not mention any destructive potential, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files).

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 effective, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage details and return information. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. A minor trim could improve conciseness without losing clarity.

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 adequately explains the return values (colors with roles, typography, logo with formats, confidence scores). It covers the full pipeline and conditional behavior (existing .brand/). For a complex tool, this is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between mode and website_url ('Set mode='auto' with a website_url to run the full pipeline...'), and by describing the return content (colors, typography, logo).

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 main function: 'Create a brand system from any website URL — extract brand colors, fonts, and logo in under 60 seconds.' It also lists common user phrasing triggers, establishing its purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like brand_extract_site or brand_compile, which share similar domains.

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 usage examples ('Use when the user says...') and explains behavior when .brand/ already exists. It suggests follow-up actions ('suggest Brandcode Studio connector') but does not mention when to use alternative sibling tools.

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