generate_theme_variant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does substantive work: it reveals the transformation logic (inversion of surfaces/borders/typography) and the preservation constraint (brand accents), and implies the source artboard remains unchanged by using 'existing' and 'variant'. It could disclose output/return behavior more explicitly, but the core side effects are visible.

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?

One tightly packed sentence front-loads the core action and resource, then adds behavior details without repetition or filler. Every phrase 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 5-parameter create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it correctly: source artboard, target mode, and transformation behavior. It stops slightly short of describing the result/return of the new variant, which would make it fully complete.

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%, so the schema already names artboardId, targetMode, and optional positioning. The description reinforces the semantic distinction between the two modes and what gets inverted, but adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema.

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?

Description names a specific verb ('creates'), a specific resource ('Light or Dark mode variant of an existing artboard'), and a distinctive mechanism (inverting surfaces, borders, typography while preserving brand accents). This clearly separates it from siblings like create_artboard and generate_responsive_variants.

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 intended use is implicit: invoke when a Light/Dark variant of an existing artboard is needed. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternatives such as generate_responsive_variants or duplicate_nodes, leaving routing to the agent's inference.

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