brand_enrich_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is additive only, never rewrites, requires governance files, and returns enriched content. It could be more specific about error handling or output structure, but overall it's transparent about the core behavior.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and includes necessary context (constraints, typical flow). It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise 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 the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the input, process, prerequisites, and output nature. It could elaborate on return values or error cases, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's use.

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% (all parameters described). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3. It mentions a prerequisite (governance directory) but that is not a parameter.

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 what the tool does: it enriches a SKILL.md by diffing against governance YAML files and injecting missing content with citations. It specifies the verb 'enrich', the resource 'SKILL.md', and the process, distinguishing it from sibling tools like brand_audit or brand_check.

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 a typical flow (Claude Design auto-generates SKILL.md → use tool → replace original) and mentions prerequisites (requires .brand/ directory with governance files). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives among siblings.

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