create_design_system_from_design_md

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds that it 'displays the design system in the UI', a useful behavioral detail, but doesn't disclose what specifically might be destroyed or other side effects. This adds some value beyond annotations without contradicting them, warranting a 3.

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 short sentences, with the first clearly stating purpose and the second providing a critical instruction. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description gives the essential workflow instruction (call upload_design_md first) and states the UI display side effect. It is complete for a create-like tool with moderate complexity, though it could mention error scenarios or what happens on conflict.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description mentions 'user uploaded DESIGN.md file' and links selectedScreenInstance to UploadDesignMd RPC, but this repeats schema information. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds marginal meaning.

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 'Creates a design system for a project, with user uploaded DESIGN.md file, and displays the design system in the UI.' This specific verb+resource combination ('creates a design system') and the qualifier 'from DESIGN.md' distinguishes it from siblings like create_design_system. The instruction to call upload_design_md first further clarifies the workflow.

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 explicitly instructs to call upload_design_md first, providing clear sequential context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions' at level 4.

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