generate-styleguide

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

The idempotentHint annotation already conveys that repeated calls are safe. The description adds valuable context about the page content (design standards, accessibility, formatting practices) and location (URL slug). It does not disclose overwrite behavior for existing slugs, but the idempotent hint mitigates the risk. No contradiction 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds useful information. There is no 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?

The description covers what the tool does, the content it includes, and where it creates the page. With an idempotent hint and no output schema, it lacks details on return values or what happens if the slug already exists. Still, it is mostly complete for a creation tool with clear parameters.

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% for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description repeats the default slug but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as the format for customBranding or the exact effect of includeExamples. 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 action ('Generate and save'), the resource ('Canvas styleguide page'), and its content ('design standards, accessibility guidelines, and Canvas-specific formatting best practices'). It also specifies the URL slug behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-styleguide (retrieval) and update-page-content (editing existing pages).

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 purpose is clear enough to imply when to use the tool: when a styleguide page needs to be created. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get-styleguide for reading or update-page-content for modifying the page. The context is solid but could be more explicit about alternatives.

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