design_suggest_accessible_color

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not disclose the return format (hex string or object), whether multiple candidates are returned, or what happens when no hue-preserving color can satisfy the level. It confirms the intent (accessible foreground) but leaves the call/response contract opaque.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence where each clause (contrast target, background, hue preservation) carries real information. No padding or 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 low-complexity three-parameter read-like tool this is close, but the absence of both annotations and an output schema means the description should say what it returns and how it fails; those gaps leave the agent guessing about the result shape.

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 100%, so the enum and degrees are already documented; the description only adds that targetHue is preserved in the output and that background is the contrast anchor. That is a modest semantic boost over the schema, consistent with the baseline 3 for full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (suggest) and an exact resource (a foreground color meeting WCAG contrast against a given background), with the added constraint of preserving target hue. This implicitly distinguishes it from checking tools like design_check_contrast, but never names any sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 conveys what the tool produces but gives no explicit guidance on when to reach for it versus verification tools such as design_check_contrast or design_check_palette_contrast. There are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions stated, leaving routing to inference.

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