Create colour palette / gradient

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

The description states what it builds (Ramp TOP gradient, Constant CHOP with swatch{i}r/g/b channels), that live controls are exposed on the parent, and that it builds standalone. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations and provides useful behavioral context, though it does not discuss permissions or edge cases like fallback behavior from the schema.

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 dense paragraph but every sentence adds value: modes, outputs, downstream usage, live controls, standalone nature. No fluff, appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core concept, modes, generated artifacts, and integration targets. It leverages the schema for parameter details and the annotations for safety flags, so it is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the description adds little beyond what the schema states. It does clarify the conceptual relationship between modes and parameters (e.g., base_hue, rule, count) and mentions the exposed controls, but no new parameter syntax or semantics beyond schema.

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 'Generate a reusable colour palette + gradient other tools can bind to,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes two modes ('harmony' vs 'from_source') and names downstream consumers (create_color_grade, generate_from_moodboard, bind_to_channel), making it distinct from sibling tools.

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 explains when to use each mode (harmony for computed swatches, from_source for sampling a TOP) and notes that a harmony palette is standalone. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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