Apply Design System

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds context about what modifications occur (injecting CSS variables, replacing fonts/colors), which is useful. No contradiction with annotations.

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 single sentence that front-loads the key action and provides specific details without any wasted words.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (presumably modified HTML). This is a notable gap for a transformation tool. Otherwise, parameter and context signals are sufficient.

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%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying 'previously created design system' and 'existing HTML', providing context that designSystemId must reference an existing system and html is the target.

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 verb 'Apply', the resource 'previously created design system to existing HTML', and specifics ('injects CSS variables, replaces fonts and colors'), distinguishing it from siblings like sp_design_create.

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 implies usage when you have existing HTML and a design system, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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