create_theme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a theme, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a creation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 the tool is a creation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., what the tool returns, error conditions) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured fields. For a tool with 4 parameters and mutation behavior, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Создать тему оформления для приложения' clearly states the action (create) and resource (theme for an application) in Russian, which translates to 'Create a design theme for the application'. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_shop_theme' or 'create_site_theme' beyond the general context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other theme creation tools (e.g., 'create_shop_theme', 'create_site_theme') or related tools like 'generate_color_scheme'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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