Create a design system

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the project is empty and its type is fixed at creation and cannot be changed later. This is critical context for the agent. It does not mention return values or error cases, but the disclosed constraints are significant.

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?

Three concise sentences with the main action front-loaded. The first sentence states what it does, the second explains the immutable project-type constraint, and the third links to sibling tools. No wasted words.

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 simple creation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and integration with sibling tools. It doesn't mention what is returned (e.g., project ID) or behavior on name conflicts, but the essential context is present.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with the 'name' parameter described. The tool description adds no extra semantics about naming conventions or requirements beyond 'Name for the design system', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Create an empty design-system project' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from the generic create_project sibling by emphasizing the empty project and fixed type.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('a design system has to be made as one from the start') and provides a clear workflow: push components with write_files and attach with link_design_systems. This gives the agent strong guidance on sequencing and alternatives.

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