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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: this is an opt-in override, and on imported projects the site's existing cards are preserved until this is explicitly called. It does not, however, clarify reversibility or what happens to unmentioned card styling.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the contract caveat immediately after. No waste, though the cross-reference to 'the buttons' leans on the reader knowing the sibling contract.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and partial schema coverage, the description covers the override semantics adequately but omits what designs 1-6 mean, what happens to existing card styling when overwritten, and it outsources 'same contract' detail to another tool rather than restating it.

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 only 33% (only 'design' is documented, with the null-revert behavior). The description names 'corner radius', clarifying the otherwise bare 'radius' parameter, and names the design choice, but 'projectId' is undocumented in both schema and description, so compensation for the gap is only partial.

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 (choose/set) and resource (card design and corner radius), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_button_design and set_badge_design. The meaning of 'design' as a preset index is left implicit, so it is clear but not fully self-contained.

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 note about imported projects implies when the call actually takes effect (cards stay the site's own until this is called), which is useful context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites exist, leaving usage to inference.

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