set_token

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that source code on disk changes, that a WebSocket live preview is pushed to the phone, and that approve_file_changes must commit or reject_file_changes must revert. That approval-workflow dependency is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Labeled sections (What it does / When to use / When NOT to use / Side effects / Parameters / Returns) make it scannable and front-loaded. Minor redundancy: 'DESTRUCTIVE: Modifies .kt files' appears in the opening line and again under side effects, and the returns section partially duplicates the output schema.

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 destructive, two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose, alternatives, on-disk consequences, the approval gate, and parameter formats. An output schema exists, so the brief Returns note is supplementary rather than the sole source of return-shape information, leaving no meaningful gap.

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 0% and both properties are bare strings, so the description carries the full burden. It supplies accepted formats and examples for each: token_name as either 'Primary' or 'AppColors.TokenName', and value as '#RRGGBB' or a numeric dimension like '24.dp'. This fully compensates for the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Surgically edit a design token value in source code') and immediately scopes it to .kt files containing the token definition. It explicitly names the siblings it is not (set_text, add_token), so an agent can disambiguate without opening any schema.

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 an explicit 'When to use' condition (adjusting a color or dimension with immediate visual feedback) and a 'When NOT to use' section that routes text edits to set_text and hardcoded-value conversion to add_token. Both alternatives are named with the condition that selects them.

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