Generate Colour Direction for Another AI

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral details: fetches archive palette, produces multiple outputs, handles locked_palette to skip archive query, and supports model-specific prompts. No contradictions.

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 paragraph that covers all essential aspects: purpose, outputs, supported models, example, and use case. It is concise but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for outputs).

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 output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description provides complete context: what it generates, how it uses the concept, model options, and optional parameters. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the locked_palette behavior ('no archive query is run') and the overall workflow. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 generates a 'complete colour direction package' for another AI, listing specific outputs (agent brief, colour tokens, prompts). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on producing a brief for other AI systems, not just a palette or analysis.

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 an example (task='luxury hotel bedroom', concept='Ottoman winter luxury', model='midjourney') and states the tool's use case: 'make Colour Memory the colour layer for other AI systems.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with similar tools like palette_generate.

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