normalize_design

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the essential trait: this is a mutating auto-fix that changes spacing, colors, and font weights. However, it omits the blast radius (the entire subtree under nodeId), the preview path (dryRun), whether changes are reversible, and what 'implied design system' means — important context before invoking a bulk write.

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 totaling roughly 20 words, with the primary purpose front-loaded and concrete behaviors listed second. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 bulk-mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. Missing are sibling-selection guidance, a mutation-breadth warning, any mention of the dryRun preview, and a definition of how the 'implied design system' is derived. The schema covers parameters, but the operational and safety context an agent needs is absent.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions ('Root node to normalize', 'Preview changes (default: false)'), establishing the baseline 3. The description adds only marginal meaning by elaborating what 'normalize' does to the nodeId subtree, and nothing about dryRun beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('auto-fix'), a resource ('a design'), and a target ('match the implied design system'), then enumerates three concrete behaviors: snaps spacing, normalizes colors, fixes font weights. These behaviors distinguish it from narrower siblings like fix_spacing and type_normalize. The only fuzziness is the undefined 'implied design system,' but the core action is unmistakable.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over its many overlapping siblings. With fix_spacing, type_normalize, color_harmonize, lint_design, detect_inconsistencies, and compare_to_system all available, an agent cannot tell whether to call this umbrella tool or a targeted one. Usage is only weakly implied by the action verbs, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives named.

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