brand_preflight

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details what the tool catches (off-brand colors, fonts, logo, anti-patterns) and its return format (pass/warn/fail, overall status). It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the nature of a preflight check implies no side effects. Slightly more explicit disclosure would improve it.

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 compact (≈100 words) with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by parameter and mode details, and ends with exclusionary statements. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return format (overall status, per-check details) and covers both modes. It provides usage context (after visual content) and differentiates from siblings, making it complete 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 is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying 'HTML string or file path' for the html parameter and explaining the effects of each mode value, including the default. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 checks HTML/CSS against brand rules and lists specific violations. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like brand_audit_content and brand_audit, making purpose unambiguous.

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 advises use after generating visual content and explains modes 'check' and 'rules' with their purposes. It explicitly states when not to use and names alternative tools, providing complete usage guidance.

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