check_design_regression

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real constraint – 'Requires Kiln Pro' – but says nothing about what 'printing worse' means (threshold, metrics, comparison basis), whether it is read-only, or what it returns. Three of the four lines are promotional upsell rather than behavior.

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?

Only the first line serves the calling agent; the remaining lines are a pricing pitch and upgrade URL. The useful purpose statement is front-loaded, but the majority of the text is noise that dilutes it.

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 no annotations and no output schema, an agent needs at least what regression means, what the result conveys, and which versions to pass. None of this is covered; the description is dominated by entitlement/pricing copy instead.

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% for the single required version_ids parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It mentions 'the latest version' singular, which arguably conflicts with an array of version IDs and gives no format or sourcing hints (e.g., from list_design_versions).

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource: check whether a design version is printing worse. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like get_regression_alerts and design_version_health, though it says 'the latest version' (singular) while the parameter is version_ids (array), creating mild ambiguity.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites for invoking, and no routing to alternatives such as compare_design_versions or get_regression_alerts. An agent has to guess whether this supersedes the other regression-related siblings.

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