design_iterate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only says 'submit a follow-up prompt' but does not mention whether the tool modifies project state, requires authentication, or what the response contains (e.g., model reply).

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 sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It lacks critical details about parameters, preconditions, and effects, making it too minimal to be effective.

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?

With 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide comprehensive context. It fails to explain expected input format, project lifecycle, or outcome of the submission, leaving significant gaps.

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% and the description adds no meaning to parameters. Neither 'projectId' nor 'prompt' are explained beyond their types, leaving the agent without guidance on valid values or formats.

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 clearly states the verb 'submit' and the resource 'follow-up prompt to an existing Claude Design project'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like design_create (create new) and design_edit (modify project settings) by emphasizing the iterative 'follow-up' nature.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as design_edit or design_create. It does not clarify prerequisites like the need for an existing project or that the project must have an active conversation.

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