compose_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what gets generated and the available export formats, but says nothing about how the output is delivered (inline strings vs. files), whether generation is deterministic, or any limits/auth requirements.

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 tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the format list and the preference-consistency note. No filler sentences.

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 10-parameter, nested-schema tool with no output schema, the description should say more about what the caller receives (file contents, paths, bundle). It covers formats and preference reuse but leaves the return shape unspecified.

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%, so every parameter is already documented with defaults and enum meanings; the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the format list but adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: build a whole design system from one brand color and export it as files, enumerating what is produced (colors, typography, spacing, shadows, grid, motion, accessibility). This implicitly distinguishes it from siblings that each generate a single artifact, though it never names them.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'Pass the same preferences you used with the other tools so the export matches them,' which is a concrete coordination instruction. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative for partial exports.

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