design_load_custom_font

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses supported formats and the side effect of registering the font for text layers and MCP tools, but omits what happens on duplicate family names, whether registration persists, or failure modes.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero waste; the format list and registration effect are packed into compact clauses.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, accepted formats, and the post-load effect. Collision/duplicate handling and return behavior are the remaining minor gaps.

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 all three parameters (assetId, family, weight) are already documented. The description adds only the asset-format context; it explains nothing about the family/weight override behavior beyond the schema.

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+resource: loading a custom font from a sketch asset, plus the supported formats. It is distinguishable from design_list_fonts and design_get_font_metrics, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied — 'load a custom font' suggests use when a non-system font is required, but the description never states when to call this instead of design_list_fonts or design_apply_text_style, nor any prerequisites.

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