brand_import

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it writes a normalized BrandProfile to a specific file path and auto-detects from known file types, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Five short, information-dense sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specifics on detection, optional scraping, output, and consumers. No 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?

With no output schema, the description partially covers return behavior by stating the output file and its consumers. It could also explain the mode parameter's effect and error handling for website_url, but given the tool's moderate complexity and good annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description need not explain each parameter. It does add context for project_path (auto-detects from tailwind config, CSS variables, constants/) and website_url (optional), but the mode parameter's strict/infer semantics are not elaborated. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 imports brand assets during Phase 1 (Illuminate) with specific actions (auto-detects colors, fonts, design tokens; optionally scrapes URL). It names the exact output file and downstream consumers, distinguishing it from siblings like design_research_brief.

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 scoped to Phase 1 and mentions that the profile is consumed by design_research_brief, ux_design, and copy_generate, giving clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other phases.

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