Remix a design kit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the original is never modified, the copy is private until published from the web Studio, requires kits:write scope, and a Pro-tier source needs an entitled key. It also implies each call creates a new copy. The only minor gap is not describing the return value or error behavior, but the core side effects and prerequisites are well disclosed.

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 five sentences, each adding distinct value: core action, source types, use case, non-destructive guarantee, alternative tool, entitlement, privacy, and scope. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 (nested overrides, 3 params, no output schema), the description covers essential context: source eligibility, repeated-call strategy, alternative tool, permissions, entitlement, privacy, and non-destructive behavior. The schema already documents parameter structure, so the description need not repeat it. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema: it mentions overrides are applied and that name defaults to a variation suffix, but those are already present in the schema. The repeated-call pattern is useful context but doesn't enrich parameter meaning beyond what schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Copy an existing kit into a new private kit with overrides applied." It clearly distinguishes itself from create_theme by explicitly naming that tool as the alternative for authoring rather than varying, and the scope (source types, private copy) is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: "fast path when you want three or four variations on one direction: call it repeatedly against the same source with different overrides." It also provides an explicit exclusion: "Reach for create_theme instead when you are authoring a kit rather than varying one." Additional context about Pro-tier entitlement and private-until-publish further clarifies when this tool is appropriate.

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