Save design kit

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

Annotations cover write safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: contrast is validated at 4.5:1, missing kit parts fall back to the 'executive' preset, preset names cannot be reused, and saved kits are never replaced unless overwrite=true.

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-loads the core action and routes the alternative last, with each sentence carrying distinct information. It is dense and slightly technical, but nothing is redundant and all content earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the kit payload, defaults, validation, overwrite behavior, naming constraint, and the sibling alternative, leaving no gap for an agent invoking this write tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: that omitted kit fields default from the 'executive' preset, that a bare preset name is accepted to copy, and the cross-parameter rule that the name cannot collide with a preset name.

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 and resource ('Save a design kit by name for reuse'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling iwork_extract_design_kit. An agent can tell exactly what this does without reading the 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 when-to-use condition ('Use when the user gives brand colours and fonts directly') and names the alternative with its selecting condition ('To capture them from an existing file use iwork_extract_design_kit'). This is textbook routing guidance.

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