recolor_report

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: handles two spellings, preserves each occurrence's form, returns per-colour counts, and requires save_report to persist. It does not cover error handling or reversibility, but the provided details exceed minimum transparency.

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 appropriately sized—four sentences covering purpose, format, behavior, and persistence. It front-loads the core action and then adds necessary details without redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the colorMap structure, handling of both spellings, return counts, and the need to call save_report. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The description adds significant meaning for colorMap by specifying the JSON format with examples and noting the two hex literal spellings. reportSessionId remains unexplained, but schema coverage is 50% and the tool description compensates for the critical parameter.

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 clearly states it performs find/replace of colour literals across ALL visuals and the theme in one call, using a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_theme_data_colors or set_data_color by emphasizing global scope and both theme and visual objects.

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 implies usage for bulk colour replacement and notes it persists only after save_report, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. The phrase 'in one call' conveys when it's appropriate relative to per-visual tools.

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