brand_generate_designmd

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states behavior: reads extraction-evidence.json, falls back to core-identity.yaml and tokens.json, is read-only except for writing two output files, and returns file paths and synthesis source. All behavioral traits disclosed.

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 a single well-structured paragraph, front-loads purpose, then usage, then behavior. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and return values. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context like 'Default prefers extraction evidence when available' for source and explains overwrite behavior, adding value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it generates DESIGN.md and design-synthesis.json from the current brand system, using specific verbs and resources. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'NOT for extracting brand identity — use brand_extract_web or brand_extract_visual first.'

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after brand_extract_site or brand_extract_visual... Use after brand_compile if evidence is unavailable.' Also gives clear exclusions and alternatives.

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