design_system_export

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds useful context by mentioning hash-verified fonts/images and an authenticated download URL, but it does not explain the destructive side effect or why the operation is classified destructive. It does not contradict the 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 two sentences with no filler, front-loads the core purpose, and places the output detail in the second sentence. Every word contributes meaning, making it an efficiently structured definition.

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 tool with three required parameters, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description should cover parameter semantics, side effects, and usage context. It covers the output format and URL but omits these other critical aspects, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must clarify the three required parameters: id, version, and digest. It only loosely implies 'version' via 'system version' and 'digest' via 'hash-verified', while 'id' is entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct a valid request.

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 the specific verb 'export', names the resource 'system version', and specifies the concrete output format '.vds-system.json' plus the hash-verified fonts/images feature. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like design_system_save or document_export by emphasizing a portable exact-version artifact.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never references sibling tools like design_system_save, snapshot_create, or document_export, nor does it state any preconditions or exclusions. The use case is only implied by the verb 'export'.

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