Color Matching: replace colours

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

Annotations declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), open-world, and non-idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: outputs are written to disk and their paths are returned, and sets are capped at 15 with one output per set — critical behavior given there is no output schema.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the parameter distinction before the pointer to the sibling and the output note. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key gaps: output location/returned paths, the mappings vs sets choice, and how to get input hexes. Remaining minor gaps (permissions, failure/overwrite behavior) are largely addressed by the schema's 'Files are never overwritten' note.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by disambiguating the two near-identical array parameters (mappings = single output, sets = multiple outputs, max 15) — a distinction the schema alone makes easy to confuse.

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 ('swap specific colours in the design') and clarifies the two mapping shapes: 'mappings = one set' vs 'sets = several alternative sets, one output each'. It names the sibling td_color_matching_extract_colors for sourcing hexes, though it doesn't differentiate from other color-matching siblings like suggest or match_reference.

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?

'Best for: swapping specific design colours for exact new values' gives explicit selection context, and the pointer to td_color_matching_extract_colors tells the agent how to obtain inputs. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus the other td_color_matching_* tools.

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