Generate multiple design variants from an existing screen to explore alternatives. Specify project and source screen, then receive a set of new design options.
Generates design variants of an existing screen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of variants to generate. | |
| screenId | Yes | The source screen ID. | |
| projectId | Yes | The Stitch project ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a generation operation but does not state whether the source screen is modified, how many outputs are created, what the return value looks like, or whether there are side effects.
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 one short sentence with no filler, and the verb is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves gaps that are better handled in usage guidelines and behavioral transparency.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many generation-related siblings, this description is too sparse. It does not explain how count is used, what 'design variants' means concretely, or how this tool differs from related generation tools.
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 parameters are already well documented and the description does not need to repeat them. The phrase 'existing screen' aligns with screenId, but the description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb ('Generates') and resource ('design variants of an existing screen'), making the core operation clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like generate_component_variants or generate_responsive_variant, so the distinction is left to the agent.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_generate_screens, generate_from_template, or generate_component_variants. The phrase 'existing screen' implies a prerequisite, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.