Pick an accessible palette

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the return count (1-3), curation, four-color structure, and output format (hex roles, CSS variables). Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature, so the description complements rather than repeats. It does not contradict any annotation.

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, well-structured sentence of 18 words. It front-loads the action ('Return') and packs all essential information (count, curation, palette size, filter, output format) without redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no required params, output schema present, annotations covering safety), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how it filters, and the output structure. The output schema can handle the detailed return format, so the description doesn't need to repeat that.

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 single parameter 'mood' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description mentions 'by mood' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's 'Optional mood, palette slug, or tags such as dark, pastel, warm, or cold.' With full schema coverage, the description adds minimal value here.

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 returns 1-3 curated four-color palettes by mood, with hex roles and CSS variables. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes palette_pick from sibling tools like find_component or alternatives, which deal with different domains.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The sibling tools cover components, templates, and plans, so some context about when to pick a palette vs. those would help.

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