design_system_asset_import

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral boundaries ('data is base64', 'No remote font fetch'), but it does not disclose what destructive action occurs, such as whether an existing asset is overwritten or removed.

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 compact sentence plus one short clarifying phrase. Every part adds relevant information, and the key operation and constraints are front-loaded with no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies accepted formats, the base64 requirement, the workspace scope, and the no-remote-fetch constraint. It could be more complete by noting the destructive implications hinted by annotations, but overall an agent has enough to 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that 'data' is base64 and implies the accepted asset formats, but it does not describe the 'name' parameter beyond schema constraints, nor does it say whether name should include an extension or be unique.

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 names a specific verb ('Import'), the exact resource types (logo/image or WOFF/WOFF2/TTF/OTF font), and the destination ('into this workspace for a design system'). It clearly distinguishes this from the generic sibling asset_import by scoping to design-system assets and to local/base64 data.

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 you have a base64 logo/image/font for a design system. It also gives an exclusion ('No remote font fetch'), but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when another sibling such as asset_import or design_system_save should be preferred.

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