refresh_design_system

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'pull' but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or what happens in case of conflicts or failures. For a mutation-like operation, more detail is needed.

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?

A single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. Every part is necessary.

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?

The operation is simple with only 2 parameters, but the description lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like conflict resolution. Adequate but not thorough.

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 50% (only designSystemId has a description). The overall description adds context about 'latest version' and 'bound design systems' but does not explain projectId beyond its role as the project. Minimum viable given partial coverage.

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 a specific action ('Pull the latest version') and resource ('bound design system(s) into the project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'attach_design_system' which are about binding rather than updating.

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 implies usage when needing to update bound design systems, but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It meets a minimum viable level but lacks clarity on context.

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