Design Record Upload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/is-safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it names the exact file written, states the receipt is derived from upload_plan.json, and discloses the downstream gating effect. It does not state permission/auth requirements, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three compact labeled blocks (purpose / Use when / Returns) with zero filler and the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

Purpose, trigger condition and a summary of the return shape are all present, and a full output schema exists so return values need not be elaborated. Nothing required to invoke this 3-parameter tool correctly is missing.

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 app_dir, project_id and open_url are already fully documented in the schema, including the note that open_url is the render_preview link not the serve_url. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (record), the exact resource (SHA-256 of every file in upload_plan.json) and the destination artifact (design/project/claude_design.json). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling design_upload_status, which checks state rather than writing the receipt.

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?

"Use when: after uploading through the claude-design MCP" gives an explicit trigger condition, and the note that the design/icon/screenshot gates fail until the receipt matches adds a strong reason to call it. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not condition, so it is not quite a 5.

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