aura_inspo_system

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the output shape (A/B/C options, a system_choice question payload with enum values, and a contrast warning). It says nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether anything is persisted, so it is partial but adds real behavioral value.

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?

Compact and information-dense with the primary purpose front-loaded, but riddled with unexplained abbreviations ('pure', 'C (blend)', 'question payload') that cost more in clarity than they save in length.

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 nested-input tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% documented parameters, the description covers the input shape and returned options but omits the aura_system contract and any error/edge behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% (aura_system is an empty schema, inspo_tokens is a bare object), so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates inspo_tokens sub-fields (palette, fonts, background?, text?, brand_hex?), but leaves the required aura_system slug format entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Resolve') and the two resources being reconciled (Inspo tokens vs Aura DESIGN system), and outlines the returned option set. It is distinguishable from unrelated siblings but never names the close ones (aura_inspo_compare, aura_inspo_recommend, aura_inspo_reference), which would fully disambiguate.

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 only usage hint is the trailing 'Tokens first', which gives an argument ordering but not a when-to-use condition. There is no guidance on when to choose this over the near-identical aura_inspo_compare or aura_inspo_recommend siblings, so selection is left to inference.

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