design_suggest_style

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only recommendation operation but never confirms it creates nothing, doesn't say what the suggestions are (style IDs? recipe names? descriptions?), and gives no hint about how results are meant to be consumed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the input precondition and ending on the output. Nothing wasted, though the brevity is partly the cause of the missing routing and output 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool with a fully documented schema, the basics are covered. What's missing is what an agent most needs next: whether returned styles feed design_get_style or design_apply_style, and how many/which kind of results come back.

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% and both parameters (prompt, limit) are documented in the schema with a concrete example. The description merely restates the prompt's role, adding no format, length, or vocabulary guidance 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?

States a specific verb (suggest) and resource (matching art styles and recipes) and names the input shape (natural language description). It doesn't reference the near-siblings design_search_styles or design_list_recipes, so the boundary is left for the agent to infer.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With design_search_styles, design_list_recipes, design_get_style and design_apply_style all present, the description gives no cue for choosing this discovery tool over those.

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