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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: suggestions are free and require explicit save to adopt. This clarifies the non-destructive but non-read-only nature. However, it doesn't describe return format or what 'direction' entails.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then a key behavioral note. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete regarding parameter meanings and expected output. It covers the free/save aspect well but misses essential details about how 'direction' and 'previewText' are used.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions palette, treatment, and font IDs, which loosely maps to the 'direction' parameter, but does not explain the required projectId or optional previewText. Significant gap.

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 (suggest) and resource (palette, treatment, font IDs from the available catalog), which is clear and differentiated from siblings like save_project_style_guide and get_project_style_guide. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from those siblings by name.

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 when to use it by saying it is 'free to customers' and that suggestions require explicit save, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like save_project_style_guide or list_ui_fonts.

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