design_record_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it states that a receipt file is written, that SHA-256 hashes of every file in upload_plan.json are recorded, and that the open_url must be the claude.ai/design link from render_preview rather than serve_url. It also explains the downstream gate dependency, which is critical operational context.

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 compact and front-loaded, using three sentences to cover the action, the open_url constraint, and the gate consequence. The arrow notation and parenthetical are dense but not wasteful.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the main workflow and side effects. However, for a three-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving app_dir and project_id entirely unexplained is a meaningful completeness gap.

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%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It explains open_url precisely, including the critical source and exclusion, but app_dir and project_id remain without any semantic explanation.

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 definition states a specific verb and resource: record a finished Claude Design upload by writing a SHA-256 receipt into design/project/claude_design.json. It distinguishes this from nearby workflow steps by naming render_preview, serve_url, and the design/icon/screenshots gates.

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?

It gives clear context for when the tool applies: after a finished Claude Design upload and before the design, icon, and screenshots gates can pass. It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools such as design_upload_status or design_export_png, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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