snap_to_palette

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'OKLab perceptual distance' and 'art coherence' as behavioral traits, and explains dithering reduces banding/noise. However, it does not disclose if the tool overwrites files, required permissions, or return behavior, leaving gaps.

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 short and structured with a clear header and bullet list of parameters. Every sentence is informative without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose immediately.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, file overwrite behavior, and how it interacts with the filesystem, which are important for an image processing tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic meaning for all parameters: 'src' as input path, 'dst' as output path, 'palette' with examples and reference to 'list_palettes', and 'dither' as Floyd-Steinberg dithering. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 the tool snaps an image to a palette using OKLab perceptual distance and art coherence, which is a specific verb-resource pairing. However, it does not differentiate from sibling palette tools like 'quantize_palette' or 'extract_palette', so it loses one point.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'quantize_palette' or 'build_palette'. The only mention is to check 'list_palettes' for palette names, which is a prerequisite, not usage context. No when-not-to-use or comparison information.

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