Apply Brand Kit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It openly states that the tool cannot be implemented and why, making it perfectly transparent that calling this tool will not perform any restyling. This is a high-value disclosure beyond what any structured field could provide.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key message 'Not implementable', and contains no filler. It is exemplary in efficiency and clarity for a stub tool.

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 that the tool is declared non-implementable, the description is fully complete: it tells the agent everything needed to decide not to use it. There is no output schema or complex behavior to document, so the one-sentence warning is sufficient.

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 for parameter meaning. It only vaguely alludes to 'colors/fonts' which partially maps to primaryColor, secondaryColor, and fontFamily, but it does not explain individual parameters. Since the tool is non-implementable, the lack of parameter details is partly excusable, but it still fails to add meaningful semantic value.

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 is not implementable and specifies what it would have done ('restyle colors/fonts on an existing design'), which immediately distinguishes it from functional siblings. However, it lacks a positive verb describing an actual capability, so it does not fully meet the 'specific verb+resource' criterion.

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 explicitly tells the agent the tool should not be used ('Not implementable'), providing a clear when-not-to-use signal. However, it offers no alternative tools for achieving the desired restyling, so the guidance is incomplete compared to a 5-level example with explicit alternatives.

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