Plumb · brand (direct + build)

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

Annotations provide minimal behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false). The description compensates fully by detailing the entire process: reference discovery, live screenshots, CSS computation, palette synthesis, assembly, compilation, and execution via plugin. It also specifies return values (references, palette, root node id) and a prerequisite (plugin pairing). No contradictions 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 structured with a concise opening sentence that captures the core action, followed by a detailed process explanation, return values, and a prerequisite note. While informative, the second sentence is lengthy and could be slightly more terse without losing meaning.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly states what is returned (references, palette, root node id). It covers inputs, workflow, outputs, and prerequisites (plugin pairing). The tool is well-situated among siblings with clear differentiation. No gaps are evident.

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 value by explaining how the 'brief' drives reference discovery and palette, noting 'count' defaults to 4, and specifying that 'references' are studied ahead of discovered ones. This contextualizes parameter usage beyond schema descriptions.

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 it 'Direct a brand board' and 'BUILD it into the paired Figma file'. The verb+resource are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing the unique pipeline (reference discovery, screenshotting, CSS computation, palette synthesis) and explicitly mentioning the same write path as plumb_design.

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 implies usage for creating a brand board from a one-line brief and contrasts with plumb_design by noting the shared write path. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like plumb_design or plumb_scan_references, nor does it provide exclusions.

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