brand_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool extracts colors, fonts, logo in under 60 seconds, runs a full pipeline in 'auto' mode, and returns current status if .brand/ already exists. However, it does not detail side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise at three sentences, with the primary action clearly stated first followed by trigger phrases and mode explanation. Every sentence serves a purpose; no redundant or vague content.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the pipeline, modes, and return types (colors, typography, logo, confidence scores). It also notes post-creation suggestion. However, it could specify what 'returns colors with roles' means more explicitly, but overall sufficient 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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., 'Set mode='auto' with a website_url to run the full pipeline'). This adds value but does not significantly extend beyond the schema's existing detail.

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's purpose: 'Create a brand system from any website URL — extract brand colors, fonts, and logo'. It uses specific action verbs and resource. The tool is distinct from siblings like brand_audit or brand_extract_site by focusing on a complete brand system creation pipeline.

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 explicitly lists trigger phrases (e.g., 'create a brand system', 'extract brand from website') and explains the two modes ('auto' vs 'interactive'), giving clear guidance on when to use. However, it does not contrast with alternative sibling tools or state when not to use.

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