select_ui_system

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that strict mode locks the selection and prohibits unrequested library substitutions, which is useful. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as overwriting an existing selection, persistence effects, or any restrictions/acknowledgement 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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds the most important behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The schema covers all parameters, but the tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is adequate for basic selection but leaves gaps around persistence, restricted-license acknowledgement, and what happens to a previously selected system.

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 the baseline is 3. The description only maps to strictMode via 'Strict mode' and does not add any meaning beyond the schema for id, persist, framework, projectPath, or acknowledgeUsageRestrictions.

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 uses a specific action verb ('Select') with a clear resource ('UI design system') and scope ('for this project/session'). This clearly distinguishes it from the read/search/compare/recommend sibling tools, and from clear_selected_ui_system.

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 when to use the tool: when the AI coding agent needs a UI design system selected for the current project or session. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as get_selected_ui_system, recommend_ui_systems, or clear_selected_ui_system, leaving usage boundaries to be inferred.

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