create_design

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the created design is empty and requires Kiln Pro, but says nothing about uniqueness of design_id, side effects, failure modes, permissions, or what is returned after creation.

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 useful definition is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, the middle sentence reads like product marketing and the upgrade URL adds promotional noise rather than invocation guidance.

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 creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It lacks enough detail about required inputs, behavioral effects, and expected outcome for an agent to call it confidently.

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 moderate at 67%, and the required design_id parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description's mention of 'named, versioned' hints at naming but does not explain any of the three parameters or how they should be supplied.

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 verb and resource: 'Create an empty design slot', reinforced by the 'gh repo create' analogy. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby creation tools such as create_design_branch or create_project.

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, despite many sibling tools that also create design-related artifacts. The description only states a Kiln Pro requirement, not the conditions or prerequisites that select this tool.

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