create_design

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

The description labels the tool as 'Mutating', indicating side effects, but no further details are given (e.g., what happens if the name is duplicate, whether existing designs are affected, or any validation rules). With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It lacks structure and does not earn its place beyond stating the basic action.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error cases, or behavior for optional fields, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing meaning for all parameters. The description adds no additional context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('create') and the resource ('a new SendGrid Design Library design'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_design or duplicate_design by specifying 'new'. However, it could be more precise about the scope (e.g., is this a design template?).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_template or duplicate_design. The context of 'Design Library' vs 'Templates' is implicit, but not explicitly clarified.

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