brand_build_themes

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Discloses mode behaviors (interview guides 5 questions, record saves with auto-ID, list shows intent distribution) and mentions return of theme data and balance analysis. Lacks details on side effects like file writing beyond 'saves'.

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?

Single well-structured paragraph, front-loaded with purpose. Efficiently covers modes, intent distribution, and balance analysis 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?

For a tool with 3 modes and 3 parameters (no output schema), the description adequately covers each mode's behavior, return values (theme data and balance analysis), and best practices. Does not provide exhaustive detail on JSON structure but sufficient 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 100%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning by explaining each mode's behavior in context and noting that answers must be JSON with theme data including content intent, target personas, and proof points, going beyond the schema's generic description.

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?

Clearly states the tool defines editorial content themes as strategic pillars, with specific verbs (define, organize) and resources (themes). Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on themes with modes for creation, recording, and listing.

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?

Provides guidance on using each mode and typical need for 3-5 themes balanced across intents, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like brand_build_journey or brand_build_personas, nor state when to use alternatives.

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