normalize_design

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, reversible, or requires permissions. The term 'auto-fix' implies modification but lacks detail on side effects or safety profile.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Auto-fix a design to match the implied design system') and then lists specific actions efficiently.

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?

The tool modifies a design, but the description omits return value (e.g., success message, diff, or error), side effects, or post-conditions. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names; for example, it does not explain the effect of dryRun or how nodeId is used. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 auto-fixes a design to match an implied design system, explicitly listing the specific actions (snaps spacing, normalizes colors, fixes font weights). This specific verb+resource combination and the list of actions distinguish it from sibling tools like fix_spacing or type_normalize, which focus on individual aspects.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., fix_spacing) would be more appropriate. The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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