design_system_plan

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 determinism, bundle-backed behavior, and the planning scope across many components, and it clarifies that the tool is a planning step, not a write operation. However, it does not mention potential side effects, return format, or failure modes, though the absence of such is less critical for a planning tool.

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 three sentences: a clear purpose statement, a breakdown of plan components, and a mandatory usage directive. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the plan's contents (intent, patterns, recipes, states, references, assets, flow, checklist) and specifies its role in the workflow. This gives a complete picture of what the tool produces and how to invoke it, which is strong for a complex planning tool.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the directive to pass the complete request rather than a shortened keyword, but this largely echoes the prompt parameter's schema description and does not add new meaning for the other parameters.

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 turns natural-language design requests into a deterministic, bundle-backed generation plan, and enumerates the plan components (product intent, screen patterns, recipes, states, candidate references, assets, flow, checklist). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly being the mandatory precursor to figma_write.

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 explicitly instructs that the tool is 'MANDATORY before figma_write whenever a design-system bundle is configured', which provides strong when-to-use guidance. It also tells the user to pass the complete request rather than a shortened keyword, further clarifying the expected usage pattern.

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