pika_build_brand

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the tool creates (brand strategy, tone of voice, etc.), but doesn't mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations. It stops short of describing the process or any non-obvious behaviors like overwriting files or requiring additional setup.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and enumerates outputs without redundant wording. Every phrase 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?

The description covers purpose and outputs, and an output schema likely handles return values. However, it lacks detail on input quality, tool behavior, or edge cases. Given the tool's complexity (generating a full brand identity), more contextual guidance would be helpful.

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?

The schema simply defines 'brief' as a required string with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds that the input is a 'product brief', which gives some semantic meaning, but it doesn't specify what a complete brief should contain or any format expectations, leaving the agent to guess.

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') and resource ('complete brand identity from a product brief'), and enumerates concrete deliverables (brand strategy, tone of voice, logo direction, color palette, typography, brand.md). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pika_generate or pika_explainer.

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 context is clear: use when you have a product brief and need a brand identity. It doesn't provide explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, but the input condition ('from a product brief') gives adequate guidance.

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