Interior Colour Specification — Full Room Brief

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the rich output (60/30/10, light behaviour, WCAG, etc.) and notes no destructive side effects. It appropriately supplements the annotation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. It is comprehensive but slightly lengthy; each sentence serves a purpose, though some trimming is possible. Still efficient.

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 (5 parameters, output schema exists, rich output), the description covers the purpose, inputs, outputs, and even directs to the PDF sibling. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds limited new information about parameters themselves. It provides usage examples and context but does not significantly enhance schema parameter semantics.

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 interior colour specification from a concept or brief, listing specific outputs (60/30/10 assignments, paint matches, light behaviour, etc.) and provides examples. It distinguishes from the PDF sibling tool and implies it is the comprehensive alternative to simpler palette tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use (input a room concept, type, style) and mentions the PDF sibling for branding. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or how it compares to other palette tools like palette_specify.

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