hex_to_cmyk

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.001 USDC via x402) but fails to mention input format (e.g., with/without #), output format, or any error behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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 very short and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The cost information is a useful addition. It is appropriately sized, though it could benefit from a bit more specificity.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks essential context: no input key specification, no output format, and no return value explanation (no output schema exists). The cost disclosure is helpful but does not compensate for the missing operational details.

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% (the single 'params' property has a description), but that description is generic ('Tool parameters as JSON object') and unhelpful. The tool description does not explain the expected keys inside params. Per the high-coverage baseline, score 3, but the actual parameter semantics are not clarified.

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 the tool performs hex to CMYK conversion, with 'Colors & Design tool' reinforcing its domain. It unambiguously differentiates from sibling color conversion tools like hex_to_hsl or cmyk_to_hex.

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 usage is implied by the tool name (converting hex color to CMYK), but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. No exclusions or comparison to sibling tools.

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