Delimit Design Generate Tailwind

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by disclosing the precise side effect: 'writes tailwind.config.js if missing, otherwise reads the existing one.' It also mentions the backend call, giving the agent a concrete model of what happens when invoked.

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 well-organized with labeled sections and front-loads the core purpose. Minor redundancy exists between the opening sentence, 'When to use', and 'Sibling contrast', and the backend call line is implementation detail, but overall every meaningful behavioral fact is included without excessive prose.

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 complete parameter schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: when to use, when not to use, and side effects. It could have added error cases or behavior when no CSS tokens are detected, but for this tool's complexity the current description is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema already documents output_path, project_path, and figma_file_key, including the note that figma_file_key is reserved for future use. There is no gap requiring description compensation.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Read an existing tailwind.config or generate one from detected CSS tokens.' It names the resource and the two behavioral paths, and the 'Sibling contrast' line explicitly distinguishes it from delimit_design_extract_tokens, saying 'this writes a tailwind config from those tokens.' This fully separates it from related tools.

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?

The description provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, naming the exact alternative tools: delimit_design_extract_tokens for general token extraction and delimit_design_generate_component for component generation. This gives an agent clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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