design_generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses side effects (writes scaffolds and project JSON to disk), refusal conditions, and a hard boundary ('this tool never uploads'). It omits idempotency/overwrite behavior for existing files in design/scaffold/ and design/project/, which matters for a file-writing tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and follows with the concrete outputs, so the agent gets the essentials in the first clause. The long parenthetical chains are dense and slow to parse, but every clause carries real information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and the description still adds the useful note that the return is claude-design MCP calls rather than an upload. Given the tool's complexity, the description covers inputs, outputs, and refusal conditions adequately, with only the app_dir contract left unaddressed.

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 single parameter app_dir is never explained in the description (no format, whether it is relative/absolute, or what it must contain). For a tool whose behavior depends heavily on directory layout, the description should compensate and does not.

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?

Specific verb ('Prepare') plus a sharply bounded resource (the Claude Design project from brief/app.spec.json/design/screens.json), with the exact artifacts enumerated (design/scaffold/, design/project/canvas.json, store_layout.json, upload_plan.json). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like design_screens_skeleton or design_research_collect without opening a schema.

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?

Preconditions are stated clearly ('Refuses without valid research/brief or when screens/tokens are not derived from the brief'), which tells the agent when this tool will succeed. It does not name the sibling alternatives (e.g., design_screens_skeleton, design_research_brief_template) or state which stage precedes it, so routing between near-neighbors is left to inference.

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