create_shadow_system

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavior. It explains that the tool creates effect styles, which is useful, but doesn't state whether existing styles are overwritten, where the styles are stored, whether a selection is needed, or whether any other side effects occur.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and the output format, includes the scale names, and wastes no words. It is immediately scannable and informative.

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 simple tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits important behavior around conflict handling with existing style names and does not clarify whether calling it mutates existing styles or creates new ones, which would matter when invoking 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already documented including defaults. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Generate'), a specific deliverable ('consistant shadow elevation system'), the included scale names ('sm, md, lg, xl'), and the output type ('effect styles'). This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like set_effects, which apply effects rather than create persistent styles.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_design_tokens, get_local_styles, or set_effects. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative references; usage context is left entirely inferred.

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