maket_charte

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that design tokens become CSS variables and that 'set' creates or overwrites. However, it does not explicitly state whether 'delete' is irreversible or provide details on side effects of mutations.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a 'When to use' section followed by a clear action table. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers usage and parameter relationships well. However, it does not explain what list/view return, which would be helpful for an agent. Still, the core functionality is adequately described.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'action' parameter with a table, providing a concrete example for 'tokens' (CSS variables), and linking 'view' to sibling tool usage. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 manages brand style guides (chartes). It distinguishes between four actions and relates to sibling tool maket_html, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use each action (list, view, set, delete) and explicitly states that 'view' is a prerequisite for charte-aware HTML edits. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or discuss alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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