maket_charte

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 discloses important side effects: set overwrites, delete removes, and tokens are injected as CSS variables into every page. It doesn't mention permissions or reversibility, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: a 'When to use' sentence, a sentence on behavioral effects, then a clean four-line action table. Every sentence earns its place without filler or 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?

For a tool with no output schema and nested objects, the description covers key outputs (view returns tokens, voice, rules, context_token; list returns colour-palette preview), cross-tool requirements, and side effects. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke each action correctly.

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 schema already covers all six parameters, but the description adds semantic value by explaining the action enum in the action table, noting that name is conditionally required for view/set/delete, and giving a concrete tokens example with the CSS variable naming convention. This goes well beyond the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool's role as managing brand style guides (chartes) and enumerates four distinct actions (list/view/set/delete). It differentiates from siblings by tying the view action to the context_token required by maket_html set/patch.

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?

Explicitly opens with 'When to use' and states that view is a prerequisite for charte-aware HTML edits, naming maket_html set/patch as the dependent consumer. The action table provides clear per-action descriptions, making it easy to select the right operation.

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