set_palette

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-not-destructive profile is already covered. The description adds useful behavioral context — notably that 'replace' makes the palette exactly the given colors and that fromSprite derives from the sprite's own colors. It does not clarify persistence (whether changes touch the sprite file), live-vs-batch side effects, or reversibility, so it adds moderate value on top of the 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?

It is a single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the modes packed in via parenthetical examples (.gpl/.pal/.act, DB16/DB32/PICO-8) that convey format hints economically. The density is high but almost every clause earns its place; minor strain comes from cramming so many modes into one sentence.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the headline modes but omits persistence behavior, backend/live-vs-batch interaction, and several parameter meanings. It is adequate to pick the tool and choose a mode, but not complete for confident invocation.

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 only 38% across 13 params, so the description must carry weight and it partially does: it explains start, replace, file, preset, and fromSprite in narrative form. However, it leaves size, save, colors format, sprite, backend, algorithm, maxColors, and withAlpha entirely unaddressed, so a notable share of parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('Changes the palette') and enumerates the distinct operating modes: set from a start index, replace entirely, resize, load from file, load a preset, or quantize from the sprite. This is far more specific than the bare name. It stops short of a full 5 because it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like palette_edit, save_palette, or get_palette.

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?

Enumerating the modes (replace, load file, preset, fromSprite) implicitly signals when each behavior applies, which is decent implied guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no routing to the sibling tools (palette_edit, save_palette) that an agent could otherwise confuse this with.

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