Send instructions to Claude Design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that the tool runs its own agent loop, reads/writes project files, takes screenshots, waits for completion, and returns what was said and which files were touched. It also notes the potentially long duration. This goes beyond minimal, though it does not mention explicit timeouts or error conditions.

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 concise sentences: first states the core action, second adds critical behavior and duration, third clarifies the target chat. No redundant words, and the 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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return value, side effects, and long-running nature. It could mention more about parameter interactions (e.g., referenceProjectIds, wait=false), but the schema covers those details. The description provides enough for an agent to decide whether to use this tool and what to expect.

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 already provides descriptions for all 10 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the schema. It does clarify the 'active chat' default and that returns include touched files, which slightly enriches semantics, but 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's function: sending an instruction to Claude Design in a project, waiting for completion, and returning the response and touched files. It uses a specific verb ('Give') and resource ('Claude Design'), and the agent-loop behavior distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_chat or write_files.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want Claude Design to autonomously work on an instruction in an active chat. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the description's emphasis on the agent loop and waiting time implies appropriate use cases. The mention of the active chat and the 'single prompt can take minutes' qualifier gives the agent a sense of expected behavior.

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