Generate Complete Design Tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: tokens are 'harmonized based on the chosen style preset,' dark_mode defaults to true, and output is 'CSS custom properties, ready to paste into a project.' It does not disclose any side effects or caveats beyond that, but with strong annotations, this is sufficient.

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 with a clear summary, Args list, Returns section, and examples. Every line earns its place: it wastes no words, and the examples greatly help an agent understand real invocation patterns. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly explains the return value (complete token set with categories as CSS custom properties). It also covers all 4 parameters, including defaults and enums. However, there is a slight ambiguity: the Returns section says 'as CSS custom properties' without acknowledging that response_format='json' would change the output structure. Otherwise, the description is complete for the tool's moderate complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the meaning of each parameter in the Args section (e.g., 'Override the preset's base color with a hex code') and includes practical examples for combination usage. This adds value without being redundant.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a complete, cohesive design token system in a single call.' It explicitly lists the token categories it combines (colors, typography, spacing, shadows, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle each category individually (e.g., ui_generate_color_palette, ui_suggest_typography).

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 context that this tool generates the full token set at once, implying it is the comprehensive option versus the individual generators. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, such as 'for just a color palette, use ui_generate_color_palette.' This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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