create_design_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. While it indicates the tool returns a report, it fails to mention the 'applyBrandKitNormalization' parameter that can rewrite colors and fonts, a side effect with mutation potential. Without this disclosure, an agent might invoke the tool with normalization enabled and inadvertently modify the document. The description also does not explain the report's return format or whether the input is mutated in any other way.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the primary action and scope, followed by a clear usage instruction. Every word contributes value—no filler or redundant details.

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 validation tool with a complex nested input schema, the description explains the report's key coverage areas but omits the report's structure or format (no output schema exists). It also fails to mention the side-effect potential of applyBrandKitNormalization. The 'before exporting' context is helpful, but the gaps around return format and mutation leave the description incomplete for full reliance.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (document and applyBrandKitNormalization), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool validates a multi-page design document and returns a QA report, with a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('multi-page design document'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_design_document and check_design_policy by explicitly covering canvas bounds, safe area, text contrast, and brand kit compliance. The name 'create_design_document' is somewhat misleading, but the description itself is unambiguous.

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 provides clear contextual guidance: 'Use this before exporting.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusions needed for a 5.

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