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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a side effect (it selects the new design system for this site), a gating precondition, and a mandatory prerequisite read (get-skill-doc "design-system-contract" before the first call). It stops short of describing failure/conflict behavior or permissions, keeping it just below the top.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the precondition, follow-up tool, and exclusion in rapid order; every sentence carries routing or gating information. Slightly dense with em-dashes, but nothing is wasted.

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 creation tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description supplies the precondition, the mutation side effect, the follow-up tool, and the required contract doc. 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 description coverage is 100%, so both name and copyCurrentTokens are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds workflow context but no additional meaning about the parameters themselves, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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+resource ("Create a NEW design system in the project") with the emphasized scope that it is a new/only-one entity. It also distinguishes itself from the get-design-system and save-design-system siblings, so an agent can place it without opening any schema.

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 an explicit precondition (only when get-design-system reports hasDesignSystem:false), names the follow-up tool (then fill it with save-design-system), and states a hard exclusion ("Never to 'start fresh' beside an existing one"). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both spelled out.

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