brand_compile_messaging

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns structured questions, saves to messaging.yaml, adds voice constraints to runtime, and returns section status. Lacks details on idempotency or overwrite behavior, but sufficient for a guided interview tool.

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?

Description is concise (6 sentences) with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: purpose, triggers, coverage, modes, dependency, and return value. 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?

No output schema exists; description only vaguely mentions 'Returns section status'. It covers workflow and dependencies well but lacks detail on the return structure or error handling, making it slightly incomplete for an agent.

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. Description adds value by explaining mode behavior (interview returns questions, record saves to file) and that 'section' is required when recording, going beyond schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool defines brand voice, messaging, and story via a guided interview. It specifies Session 3 and differentiates from sibling brand_extract_messaging by mentioning it as an optional prerequisite.

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 lists trigger phrases and modes (interview/record). Provides workflow context ('Use after brand_extract_messaging'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools for other tasks.

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