Generate Archive-Grounded Colour Names

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, adding context about archive verification and naming styles. No contradictions, but it doesn't delve into potential edge cases or side effects beyond the archive feature.

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?

Two sentences succinctly convey purpose, key features, and use case. No fluff, front-loaded with action and resource.

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?

With a complete schema, annotations, and output schema present, the description covers the core functionality and primary use case. It could mention output format or error handling but is sufficient for typical use.

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 description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'Choose from naming styles' is already implied by the style parameter description). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (generate), resource (colour names), and scope (archive-verified, for any hex value). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ecommerce_namer' by emphasizing archive grounding and Shopify product naming use case.

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 indicates usage for product naming in Shopify with archive-backed names and gives style options. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving room for improvement.

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