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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: sandbox execution (scripts run but cannot reach ecomdly, cookies, or owner data), a 2 MB size cap, public-link exposure, and a secrets/customer-data warning. It also discloses versioning behavior for republishing.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence (versioning, sandbox, size limit, exposure warning, policy) adds distinct value. Slightly dense with em-dash-nested enumerations, but nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return (the https://ecomdly.com/designs/<hash> link), and a mutation tool with zero annotations is fully covered on safety, limits, runtime environment, and publishing policy. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the `design` parameter (hash or URL, republish semantics, unchanged link) beyond the schema's terse entry. The remaining params (html, css, js, note, title) are left to the schema, which already documents them well.

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 (publish) and resource (design), enumerates the concrete artifact types (banner set, page layouts, e-mail, component, feature), and names the return (a link). An agent can immediately distinguish it from design_get and design_list, which retrieve rather than create.

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?

Gives explicit mode-selection guidance: pass `design` to version an existing one (link stays the same, prior versions viewable) versus a new design. Adds a policy exclusion ('publish only what the owner asked for or agreed to — otherwise offer it first') and points to the ecomdly-designs skill.

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