prepare_design_doc_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no LLM call is made, returns skip if DESIGN.md exists, and returns prompts. It also instructs the agent to generate the draft externally. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., whether it modifies any state), though it appears to be read-only.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then behavior, then instruction, then args, then returns. It front-loads key info. However, it is somewhat lengthy and repeats parameter details that could be streamlined.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (so return values are partially covered), the description adds preconditions (DESIGN.md existence), dependencies (loads outline from project), and a clear action for the agent (call ingest_design_doc_draft). It covers the tool's role in the workflow despite missing annotations.

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. It explains each parameter: project_id loads outline from saved project, color_theme with default 'dark', and outline_json as optional. It adds value by linking project_id to saved outlines and color_theme to dark/light options. However, the format of outline_json is not detailed.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Prepares the prompt for the CLIENT to draft DESIGN.md (design intent).' It distinguishes from siblings like 'ingest_design_doc_draft' by explicitly instructing to call this once before generating slides and then use its output to call the ingest tool.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: call this 'ONCE before generating slides' and what to do if DESIGN.md already exists (returns skip). It also guides the agent to generate the draft and call ingest_design_doc_draft. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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