palette

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the one mutating path (set=true writes colors, extracted, and ramps into the sprite palette), which is the key risk signal. It stops short of saying whether the existing palette is replaced or merged, and gives no information about side effects or return shape.

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?

Mode information is front-loaded and each clause carries a distinct fact, with no filler. The pseudo-BNF shorthand (extract{max}, ramps:[{...}]) is dense to the point of being cryptic, which costs a point on clarity but not on efficiency.

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?

This is a five-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, so the description has to do a lot. It covers most modes but leaves extract.frame undocumented, does not explain what a non-set call returns, and does not clarify combination semantics when multiple mode parameters are passed together.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents ramps defaults (steps=5, hueShift=20, contrast=1), the meaning of extract.max, the colors preset/hex form, and the set flag. It omits the nested extract.frame parameter and does not describe the top-level path or how path relates to extract for non-sprite images.

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?

Names a specific resource (palettes) and enumerates the concrete modes: read current, extract dominant colors, generate ramps, and set. It is telegraphic rather than prose, but an agent can determine what the tool does and that it is not a sibling tool like draw or preview.

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?

'No args: current palette' establishes the default call, and 'set=true writes colors+extracted+ramps' implies the modes can be combined. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use extract versus colors versus ramps, whether the modes conflict, or when to pick this over a sibling.

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