Create a design kit (theme)

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 so admirably. It discloses that the result is always PRIVATE, that this tool cannot publish, that forking Pro kits needs an entitled key, and that it requires the kits:write scope, including a hint about regenerating the key on a 403. This goes far beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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 a dense paragraph of five sentences. Every sentence carries substantive guidance (mode selection, fork vs. scratch, privacy, entitlement, alternative tool, auth scope). It is longer than the two-sentence ideal but justified by tool complexity; no filler or redundancy is evident.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers all essential context: purpose, two usage modes, when to choose each, privacy/publishing behavior, Pro entitlement, auth scope, and a sibling alternative. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the schemas already contain detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance above that by explaining the relationship between `base` and `overrides` (fork inherits a coherent system, you only state differences) and the privacy implication (always PRIVATE). This lifts it above baseline, though the schema already does most of the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Author a new design kit') and clearly distinguishes two modes (from scratch via `kit` or forking via `base`). It also differentiates from sibling `remix_theme`, explicitly saying to use that for quick variations.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use `base` whenever a catalog kit is close to what you want' and 'Use remix_theme instead when you want several quick variations off one direction.' Also clarifies the trade-off between forking and authoring from scratch, plus the privacy/publish limitation.

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