generate_design_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The word 'original' usefully signals fresh generation rather than template reuse, but nothing is said about the output format, determinism, or what the generated document contains. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is an adequate but thin 3.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the artifact name comes first and the inputs follow. It is efficient, though arguably thinner than the complexity of a seven-required-parameter generator warrants.

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 generator with seven required parameters, a nested colors object, zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description leaves an agent without enough to call it confidently. It should at minimum clarify the units/format expected for typeScale and spacing and what the produced DESIGN.md looks like.

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% across seven required parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It loosely maps its enumerated categories onto colors, fontFamilies/typeScale, spacing and componentRules, but never addresses name or purpose, and gives no format detail such as whether typeScale and spacing are pixel values or what a component rule string should look like. Partial compensation only.

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 gives a specific verb (Create) and a specific artifact (an original DESIGN.md), and enumerates the input categories (colors, typography, spacing, component rules), which implicitly separates it from the single-token generators like generate_palette, generate_type_scale and generate_spacing_scale. It never names a sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite information (e.g., that tokens should be produced first), and no named alternative such as get_design_system or get_template for agents that want an existing design rather than a generated one. The agent must infer the tool's place in the workflow.

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