generate_taste_portrait

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

It discloses that portraits are generated from the local taste store, are self-contained HTML, and that a portrait is a document about the surface—so design_notes are not acceptance criteria. This is useful context beyond what the annotations and schema provide. It does not describe exact overwrite behavior, but `destructiveHint: true` already covers the key side-effect signal.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The main action and the gallery behavior are front-loaded, and the audit_taste caveat, while dense, is genuinely useful context for correct downstream usage. It is slightly long but every sentence earns its place.

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 file-generating tool with three parameters and no output schema, it covers the required inputs, both invocation modes, and the nature of the generated artifact. It could be more explicit about return values or confirmation behavior, but the expected output is well inferable from `output_dir` and the 'HTML portrait / gallery index' language.

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%; `profile`, `output_dir`, and the optional `project` behavior are already described in the input schema. The description reinforces the project/project-omit distinction in prose, but it adds little new parameter-level information beyond a paraphrase, so it sits at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Render a bound Taste Engine surface as a self-contained designed HTML portrait.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling generation and audit tools, and it defines both output modes: one binding or every binding plus a gallery index.

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 gives explicit conditional usage: pass `project` to render one binding, or omit it to render every binding plus a gallery index. It also provides post-generation guidance around verifying with `audit_taste` and passing `document_kind:'portrait'`. It does not explicitly name alternative generation tools or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is otherwise strong.

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