attach_design_system

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

No annotations provided. Description only says 'Bind', which implies an association, but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or whether the operation is reversible. As a mutation tool with no annotation safety net, 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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It could be longer to cover critical context without being verbose.

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 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the effect of attaching, prerequisites (e.g., both resources must exist), and what the output indicates (e.g., success or failure).

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%. Description names the parameters implicitly (project, design system) but adds no semantic detail beyond the property names. It does not clarify where to obtain these IDs (e.g., from list_projects, list_design_systems).

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Bind', resource 'design system to a project', and purpose 'reuses that system's tokens/components'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'detach_design_system' and 'create_design_system'.

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, no prerequisites or conditions mentioned. For example, it does not specify that the project and design system must already exist.

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