generate_taste_portrait

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms it renders and writes HTML files (destructive). It adds context that portraits are generated from the local store and that profile rules bind in full. No annotation contradictions. Could potentially mention that output files are written to output_dir, but the schema covers that.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by parameter behavior and verification guidance. Every sentence adds essential 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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and important usage context (verification, acceptance criteria). It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond schemas: it explains that omitting 'project' renders every binding plus a gallery index.html, and that 'output_dir' is where files are written. This clarifies parameter usage and constraints.

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 renders a Taste Engine surface as an HTML portrait, and distinguishes between rendering one binding (with project) versus all bindings plus gallery (omit project). It also specifies that it uses the local taste store, differentiating it from sibling tools like audit_taste or decision tools.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool: pass 'project' for a single binding, omit for all bindings plus gallery. It also provides post-usage guidance: verify with audit_taste using document_kind:'portrait' and clarifies that design_notes are not acceptance criteria. This helps the agent choose correctly among siblings.

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