design_system_save

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses immutability and the versioning rule, both important behavioral traits. It does not detail side effects like overwriting drafts or required permissions, but with annotations covering destructive intent, the additional context is meaningful and does not contradict the annotation.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose first, no filler or repeated schema content. Every sentence contributes either the action, a prerequisite, or a versioning rule.

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 description captures the core save semantics, asset prerequisite, and immutability rule, but for a complex nested-object tool with no output schema it omits what successful save returns or how errors surface. It also does not clarify what exactly gets overwritten versus newly created, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate for the huge system parameter, but it only loosely identifies the payload as a 'native design-system version.' It does not explain required fields (id, name, version), asset prerequisites, or how the version is chosen, so it adds little semantic value over 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 action ('Save'), a clear resource ('reviewed native design-system version'), and a defining constraint ('immutably') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_default or apply. The final sentence adds a core rule—'A changed definition requires a new version'—which reinforces what this tool is for.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance: only save after review, import assets first or use a portable/source preview, and start a new version for changed definitions. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as design_system_check or design_system_preview, leaving some routing to inference.

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