modify_theme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies an existing theme 'in place' and lists the mutable properties. However, it does not mention potential side effects, whether changes affect only specified properties, or persistence behavior, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and including a necessary prerequisite. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: what the tool does, the prerequisite, and a high-level grouping of parameters. It omits details like return values or error behavior, but these may be less critical given the schema descriptions.

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 88%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by grouping parameters semantically: 'palette (primaryColor or colors list)', 'background/foreground', and 'card defaults (cornerRadius/shadow/font)'. This helps the agent understand how parameters relate beyond individual schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Tweak' and clearly identifies the resource ('the report's current custom theme'). It lists specific editable aspects (palette, background/foreground, card defaults), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_theme or apply_report_theme by emphasizing 'in place' modification.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Run generate_theme or apply_report_theme first.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the prerequisite implies a distinction from theme creation/application.

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