art.workflow.guide

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool enforces palette discipline, form-first hierarchy, per-step color limits, and that the output is text instructions meant to be read and followed sequentially. It doesn't mention side effects or failure modes, but none are strongly implied.

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?

Three sentences deliver a clear purpose, key constraints, and output format with no redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

The description is sufficient for a code-generation-style tool: it defines the output as text instructions and explains how to use them. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the explicit statement about the guide being TEXT instructions. It could add more about how profile or material affect the guide, but the schema already covers those.

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%, and the property descriptions already define width, height, profile, subject, and material. The tool description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it does frame how the parameters relate to the generated guide.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate a step-by-step painting guide') and clear resource ('for the AI to follow when drawing a subject'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like art.workflow.palette and art.detail.* by emphasizing the sequential text guide nature.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: when the AI needs a step-by-step guide to follow while drawing a subject. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate invocation scenario.

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