sapiens_brand

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

Beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses costs (~950 Sinapses for generate with refund on failure, ~75 for refine, free reroll, catalog model price for card), billing from the sessionToken owner, visibility/publication effects, and persona dropping on adopt. This gives the agent important side-effect awareness.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core definition, then organized around sub-actions; the length is justified by ten distinct behaviors. It is slightly run-on and repeats the generate cost warning at the end, but every section carries operational value.

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 multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers each action's purpose, applicable parameters, auth requirement, costs, and side effects. The agent can correctly select and invoke any sub-action, and the workflow hint for generate fills the main open-ended parameter.

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?

Input schema coverage is high (89%) and already documents parameter purposes, so the description doesn't need to re-explain them. It adds value by mapping params to specific actions (slug for get/refine/reroll/card/delete/set_visibility/adopt, piece for reroll, feedback examples, isPublic semantics) and by giving workflow guidance for generate's description 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 opens by defining Brand Sapiens as a Design System (palette, typography, voice, image style, persona) and as the single source of style, then itemizes ten concrete sub-actions (list, get, generate, refine, reroll, card, delete, set_visibility, list_public, adopt) with distinct verbs and resources. This clearly distinguishes it from related content-generation siblings and from its own sub-actions.

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?

It explicitly states when each sub-action applies and attaches conditions: get is 'só oficial ou o próprio', delete/set_visibility apply to the user's custom brands, list_public is for community opt-in public designs, and adopt clones into a new private copy while dropping persona. For generate it instructs the agent to converse with the user, assemble a rich description, and confirm the ~950 Sinapse cost before calling.

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