maket_charte

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that tokens become CSS variables injected into every page, that set creates or overwrites, and that delete removes a charte. It does not discuss irreversibility or permissions, but the main behavioral traits and outputs are disclosed.

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 front-loaded with a 'When to use' lead and then builds toward a compact action table. The prose sentences about CSS variables and maket_mermaid are relevant context, and the action list gives a crisp overview. It is slightly longer than the minimum needed, but every section earns its place.

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?

The description covers all four actions, explicitly states what view returns (tokens, voice, rules, context_token), and explains the cross-tool dependency on context_token. The schema covers parameter formatting in detail. Minor gaps such as error conditions or permission requirements exist, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 documents all parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds context about tokens becoming CSS variables and view returning a context_token, but it does not add much parameter-level syntax beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool's resource ('brand style guides (chartes)') and enumerates four concrete operations: list, view, set, and delete, each with a one-line outcome. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like maket_html and maket_mermaid by naming exactly what it manages.

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 opens with 'When to use' and explicitly explains that view is a prerequisite for charte-aware HTML edits because it returns the context_token needed by maket_html set/patch. It also provides cross-tool context for maket_mermaid. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-selection rules, but the usage context is clear.

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