Make Any Colour Memorable

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it reveals that the output is backed by the nearest archive colour's cultural provenance, and that audience and tone parameters tune the output. This helps the agent understand the data source and customization capabilities.

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 three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and outputs, the second adds provenance context, and the third lists use cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (generating multiple content types with tunable parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers inputs, outputs, use cases, and behavioral context without needing to repeat return format details.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains how audience and tone are tunable with examples, and lists the specific outputs (hook, story, tweet, etc.) that the agent can expect. This goes well 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 multiple types of content (hook sentence, story, tweet, image prompt, follow-up questions) for any hex colour. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from sibling tools like colour_story or colour_forensics by focusing on shareable content generation.

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 use cases: 'make archive colours shareable, to generate content, or to power a public-facing colour chat experience'. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative siblings.

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