chord_generate_shadows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the produced artifacts (elevation levels, focus ring, glow), which is useful, but says nothing about determinism, whether the palette is derived or required as input, or what form the result takes. Adequate but thin for a generator with zero annotation coverage.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The shadow_intensity legend slightly duplicates the enum in the schema, but it is compact and arguably adds nuance, so it still earns its space.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally convey the return shape (design tokens, CSS variables, etc.) and how the extracted shadow system is meant to be consumed. It names the artifacts but not their format, leaving a real gap for a nested-object, no-output-schema generator.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds a small amount of meaning for shadow_intensity ("flat (borders, no depth)"), but does not explain the relationship between the top-level color_scheme/shadow_intensity and their duplicates inside preferences, which is the genuinely ambiguous part of this schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Generate a shadow and elevation system") and names the concrete artifacts it produces — elevation levels, focus ring, glow. It clearly separates this from palette/type/grid siblings by output domain, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it differs from.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a palette must exist first), and no mention of alternatives among the nine siblings. The second paragraph only enumerates shadow_intensity values, which is reference data rather than invocation guidance.

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