Generate a structured tattoo brief from your idea, style, placement, and size to share with an artist, including questions and requirements for consultation.
Turn a tattoo idea, style, placement and size into a structured brief to bring to a tattoo artist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| idea | Yes | ||
| avoid | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| style | Yes | ||
| size_cm | Yes | ||
| placement | Yes | ||
| must_include | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never says whether the brief is persisted or purely returned, whether any inputs are rejected, or what the output looks like, leaving an agent guessing about the tool's side effects and result 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?
A single well-formed sentence with the inputs front-loaded and the output named last. It earns its place without padding, though it is arguably undersized for a 7-parameter tool.
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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is the only source of behavioral information and it supplies almost none. It should at minimum explain the optional parameters and what the resulting brief contains.
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 0% across 7 parameters. The description names four of them (idea, style, placement, size) matching the required set, but says nothing about the three optional ones (avoid, color, must_include) or about constraints such as the 200 cm size ceiling.
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 names a clear transformation ('turn a tattoo idea, style, placement and size into a structured brief'), so the verb and resource are unambiguous and an agent can tell it produces a brief rather than a check or a prompt. It does not differentiate itself from the siblings check_small_size_legibility or line_art_prompt, which keeps it out of 5 territory.
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, and no mention of the sibling tools that could be used instead or in addition. 'To bring to a tattoo artist' hints at the downstream consumer but says nothing about when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.