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

The description adds extensive behavior beyond the annotations: queued runs never start, running runs stop at the next step but remain 'running' until settling, settled states and error codes (cancelled, execution_failed, execution_timeout), retention of saved screens/theme changes, charging only when data.result.operations is non-empty, and the project lock. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot provide.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then proceeds through relevant behavioral details in short, information-dense sentences. Every sentence contributes distinct and useful information, with no wasted prose.

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 the output schema and annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, when to use, state transitions, error outcomes, charging, locking, and the polling requirement. No critical point 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% and both parameters have schema-level descriptions, so the schema already explains runId and projectId sources. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Ask a design run to stop') and immediately gives a motivating scenario. It names the sibling tool 'get_design_run' for polling, so an agent can distinguish cancellation from status checking.

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?

It gives a clear use case ('when the brief was wrong') and a prerequisite ('poll get_design_run before starting another run'). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name a cancel alternative, so it falls short of a full 5.

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