generate_theme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does well: it discloses that generation also applies by default, that it changes structural colors and fonts, and that 'EVERY visual automatically gets the card look' including hidden headers. This reveals the global side effects that matter. It stops short of stating whether existing manual formatting gets overwritten or if the operation is reversible, but the primary behavioral traits are well covered.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, then lists key inputs, then gives two compact usage tips. Every sentence earns its place: no filler, no restating of schema field names, and the structure moves logically from definition → behavior → configuration. It is concise despite covering a lot of ground.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage, side effects, and key parameter relationships. It explains the palette derivation methods, the card-look defaults, and the apply behavior. It does not enumerate every parameter, but the schema already handles that. The main missing piece is a description of the returned JSON when apply=false, though the schema hints at 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 coverage is 92%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining how the inputs combine to produce a complete theme: '8-colour palette derived from a primaryColor, an explicit colors list, or a named style', plus structural colors and fonts. It also clarifies the effect of cardStyle and dark beyond the schema's terse descriptions, tying parameters to the resulting visual defaults.

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 and resource: 'Generate AND (by default) apply a complete professional theme.' It clearly enumerates the scope (8-color palette, structural colors, fonts, visualStyle defaults) and differentiates itself from narrower siblings like generate_palette by emphasizing the full 'looks pro' layer. The 'complete' and 'EVERY visual' phrasing makes the tool's all-encompassing role unmistakable.

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 clear contextual guidance: it is the 'theme-driven looks pro layer' meant to be paired with auto_arrange, and parameter toggles are explained ('Set cardStyle=false for flat visuals, dark=true for a dark theme'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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