create_design_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that multiple collections will be created, but it does not state whether existing tokens are overwritten, whether this creates variables/styles, whether repeated calls duplicate token sets, or what side effects occur despite the generative nature of the tool.

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 sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence expands the scope with the exact collection types produced. This is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description gives a clear high-level outcome and the schema covers all inputs, so an agent can make a reasonable first call with brandColor. But without an output schema or annotation, it should also hint at the return value or side effects (e.g., created variable collection names) to be fully complete.

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 the schema already documents name, withModes, and brandColor. The description adds nothing semantically new about the parameters beyond tying brandColor to the system generation, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 names a specific action ('Generate a complete design token system from a brand color') and spells out the resulting resource types: color, spacing, radius, and typography collections. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like import_tokens or create_variable_collection, but the core purpose 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 phrase 'from a brand color' gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, and the optional withModes parameter implies light/dark token creation. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives for existing token sets or manual variable creation.

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