load_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it never says whether this operation mutates state, loads from disk, or is read-only, and gives no permissions, side effects, or reversibility notes. 'Land/import draft metadata and revision' hints at what is operated on but discloses no behavioral trait an agent could act on.

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?

It is brief, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy; the leading noun phrase 'Hull spec' does not front-load the tool's action, and the second sentence is a redirect rather than useful instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the agent still lacks the essential facts: what this tool loads, from where, and when to choose it over the many hull/design/import siblings. The definition is not sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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 single parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never explains what name refers to (a hull spec name, design name, or file name) or its format. Nothing compensates for the schema gap.

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 is a fragment ('Hull spec, or land/import draft metadata and revision') with no clear verb or resource. An agent cannot tell whether load_design reads, creates, or restores a design, nor how it differs from siblings like list_designs, store_design, save_hull, or get_hull_spec.

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?

It redirects editing work to 'part tools' but never says when to call load_design itself or what prerequisite state it expects. No alternative is named for the load/spec case, and no when-not condition is given.

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